Theirs is a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace of a trace, and so on, of all the knowledge in the universe, and, still, the secular humansits say, as though they know, that there is no God.

==ID say, god did it, think no more.==

Scoffers like to portray the argument this way, and, this also says, "Think no more."

That's cuz secular humanists use only what supports their view and/or what they wanna see in what they say is the "evidence."

==150 years is pretty solid for a scientific theory but the good ones stay good.==

Hard to fight selfish persistence.

== Einsteins theories are about 100 years and make no mistake, they too are just theories, still solid and reliable. Newtons laws on gravity, still very useful, they have been added too but they are correct.==

Those who have done the experiments on God and faith have found that what God promised also to be correct.

those who have done the experiments regarding God and faith have found things, too, and that what God promised works. Secularists refuse to do the experiment. What kinda Science is THAT?

==Might evolution be superseded but a better and more complete theory in the future? That’s possible, but it won;t be superceded by ID.==

Secular humanists won't let it.

And, yet, we never see gravity, nor love, nor beauty, nor music. Still, secularists believe they exist cuz-a, as you say, "effects." And, still, they deny the effects of God and faith proving God and faith.

==a surprising amount of science works this way, we do many practical things based on theory, nuclear bombs, atomic energy, nuclear medicine, etc all work based on the correctness of a theory but nobody has seen a nucleus==

Again, secularists deny God and faith cuz, they say, they can't see them. And, yet, they believe in other things they cannot see. Interesting flexible empriicism there.

So can the effects of Creation and faith.

==… but a theory exists about what it is and how it should work if the theory is correct, and based on these theories we can send people to the moon, place sattelites in orbit and those little accelerometers in iPhones can be used to make nifty games.==

Same for Creation and faith.

==The proof of a scientific theory often has do do with ideas like, if this theory is valid then one should be able to make useful/valid predictions.==

Creation and faith work the same way.

true enough, in a way

keep in mind gravity can’t be seen or measured ( it’s effects can ), but a theory exists about what it is and how it should work if the theory is correct, and based on these theories we can send people to the moon, place sattelites in orbit and those little accelerometers in iPhones can be used to make nifty games.

The proof of a scientific theory often has do do with ideas like, if this theory is valid then one should be able to make useful/valid predictions.

so regarding gravity … if the theory is true if we fire a missile of a certain weight using a certain amount of force we can reliably predict it will land over there, not only that, even before the theory was developed the rule would work.

a surprising amount of science works this way, we do many practical things based on theory, nuclear bombs, atomic energy, nuclear medicine, etc all work based on the correctness of a theory but nobody has seen a nucleus

evolutionary theory and natural selection theories explain much of the natural world. You can make predictions based on it. Predictions were made about what we would find in the genetic code once we could map it, these have been found to be largely true and even more informative than expected. Predicitons could be made about various species that probably existed in the past, missing links and various dead end. these too have proved valid, and even more than expected. Much of medicine and other life sciences now rely on aspects of evolutionary theory. It is reliable enough to depend on in these arenas, just as gravity is reliable enough to send men to the moon.

Might evolution be superseded but a better and more complete theory in the future? That’s possible, but it won;t be superceded by ID. ID’s most basic theories keep falling apart, irreducible complexity, every example they have cited has already been dis proven by examples in life or the fossil record.

150 years is pretty solid for a scientific theory but the good ones stay good. Einsteins theories are about 100 years and make no mistake, they too are just theories, still solid and reliable. Newtons laws on gravity, still very useful, they have been added too but they are correct.

Some other theories have come and gone, stepping stones to better theories.

Darwin, Einstein, Newton, et al, would all be just as proud if their theory was a stepping stone towards a more complete understanding. They all also understand that these are explanations/understanding based on our limited view of the universe. Every scientist is aware that there is much more to be known than we already know.

ID say, god did it, think no more.

Al Gore says the debate is over.

neither is science, neither should be in any school

Science, though, has not observed trans-species evolution, nor tested any chaims that there is such a thing and found them to be true. “Evolution” is a theory. That means, “guess, speculation.” Evolutionists claims amount to saying, “It’s true cuz it’s true.”

(2) Evolution doesn’t even HAVE to be true to be what it is: a slammin’ model of reality that can be exploited to make predictions about biology, ecosystems, etc. Very useful. Statistics people like myself are often not interested in a model’s “truth,” as much as we are about its utility…

(3) That creationism is seen as the base of “ID” theory is most unfortunate. The same guys who were in charge of Bush’s PR Dept. must be in charge of the ID PR…

(4) Ben Stein is a funny and intelligent speaker, and any university who would not have him as a commencement speaker is poorer for it. Heck, my school will have him — and we are a mere K-12 school. Come to think of it, we could have him speak at a K-12 school and not have to worry about content or delivery… that says something…

#7, huh, non-sequitor, flat earthers, creationists, who cares, no flat earther said the earth is flat, god said so, and sailors always knew it was round, the flat earth thing is silly.

#8, so you too are a victim of conventional thinking, we’ll have to take your word for your work quality, etc. but since you don’t understand the theories you bring up here in support of your arguments ( biogensis, thermodymanics ) I’m going to have to remain skeptical about your version. As well, like it or not, you really do have to learn the material as taught. When you are a prof, you can set the course materials.

We’ve all had to occassionaly tow the line to get through courses, that’s life.

It doesn’t end after college!!!

Do you remember the fraudulent study the prof taught? I’m curious about that and how do you know it is fraudulent?

Many profs have politically based blind spots, and niavety about peaceful natives is one of them, but you are confusing issues there, social history is not science. Perhaps science is sometimes used to inform it but that doesn’t make it science.

Ken

Global warming consensus is the best known example of how this concept can be abused but in fact there never was a consensus, just a pretend consensus mocked up by bureaucrats after the scientists left the meeting.

As for evolution … it’s been 150 years, it was not a consensus at first, there were competing theories and complete disavowal of it initially. But, yes, it is not accepted that this is the best explanation for how line changes and adapts over time. Most importantly, no convincing alternate theory has been found or even suggested for a long time.

Only ID has been offered and ID is clearly religion and untestable.

BTW, offering up weaknesses in evolutionary theory doesn’t make your theory stronger. What makes your theory stronger is seeing if it fits what is observed and if claims or predictions can be borne out by it. Evolutionary theory has met these tests again and again.

ID always goes back to the designer ( God ) did it, that’s where all ID claims end up. That is not science, that is faith.

love to see your paper, can you post a link