> > Much of our astronomical knowledge is deductive rather than inductive. You can perform rigorous observations despite being forever separated in time and space from the subject of your observations, and from those observations build good science.
> >
>
> In the case of astronomy, though, you are observing what is, not what was (not accounting for the time it takes the stars' light to reach us).
>

I think Stephen makes a good comparison here. In astronomy we don't directly manipulate things as in many of the other sciences; we don't set up experiments with stars and see how long they take to burn out under various condition -- we're limited mostly to observing light (and other particles, to a degree) that comes in from every direction. From there we build up a solid theory that accounts for various types of stars, formations such as galaxies/clusters, and such. *All* of that is from observation, with none of the scientists involved able to set things up to their experimental liking to *any* degree.

Now let's take the study of evolution. Again, the ability to set things up as we like (in practical terms, at least) is absent. We're limited to observation, but as with astronomy that lets us get very far in building up theories. In terms of fossil study, we're virtually limited (over the span of a few decades or centuries) to evidence that resulted from processes far in the past. Processes are slow to occur in real time, so we can't *choose* our method of experimentation and this is somewhat limiting. But this is just what I said above about astronomy! Astronomy indeed is the study of physical phenomena that are ongoing into the present, but then again so is the study of evolution. Just as astronomy works with observation of events often millions or billions of years past (as you allude to), so is the case with the evolutionary sciences. Just as we don't discount astronomical theories because of this distancing of the evidence, so we should not do for evolutionary sciences.

Anyway, all of that was my argument that you really can draw a good comparision between the two fields in terms of what constitutes evidence and experimentation.

> > Any area of research that claims to be a discipline of science but deals at its very core with a non-falsifiable hypothesis (in ID's case this is the designer) is not really a science. ID is not a science, no matter how much it pretends to be one.
> >
> > That said, you can attack the theory of evolution on purely scientific grounds. I have no interest in having that discussion, but suffice it to say ID is absolutely not about promoting a second scientific theory in place of evolution. It is about promoting a philosophical and theological position, which is outside the boundaries of science.
> >
>
> I agree. My point was that evolution is given far more credibility by the scientific community than it has earned. Everything being created from nothing by God is bunk, but everything being created from nothing by the Big Bang could perhaps be workable.
>
> There will always be those who try to scientifically prove both evolution and intelligent design. I don't believe either will ever be successful. I do believe that creationism is more compatible with science than most people think and that evolution is not as compatible as popular opinion holds. As the evidence stands, what to accept as true is largely up to individual interpretation.
>

The main thing I want to address here is the misconception that the theory of evolution is an all-encompassing theory of the entire history of the universe. I'm not sure you're claiming this, but as it's somewhat related to the topic I'd like to discuss it briefly. In a sense, there *is* a theory of universal evolution -- how we got from the Big Bang to how things are now -- but by "evolution" most people mean biological macro- and micro-evolution. In that sense there are two additional theories which must be *separately* addressed.

First, a theory on the origins of the universe. Much of the public debate over evolution brings this up, but given that we're talking about biological evolution, it has absolutely no bearing. The debate over the origins of the universe is entirely separate. I think it get tied in roundabout fashion -- the study of life on Earth gets addressed through evolutionary theory and creationism, but creationism also encompasses universal origins.

Second, a theory on the specific origins of life on Earth (abiogenesis). This second phase is also addressed by creationism, so by association it gets tied in to the evolution debate. However, evolutionary theories are (to my knowledge) separate from theories of abiogenesis. They work from the starting point of forms of life *already present* and self-sustainable, then try to explain how the group properties of those life forms change over time.

That said, yes, I entirely agree with you that much of creationism is more compatible with science that most people believe. How the universe got started, how life on Earth began -- evolutionary science doesn't touch it. Where the conflict comes about is in the third aspect of creationism: explaining how the current diversity of life on Earth came about. This is still a rather large conflict, yes, but at least we should keep the irrelevant issues out. Going back to what you say about God/the Big Bang -- I don't think most people would say this. They don't say that the idea of God creating the universe is bunk; many of the people developing purely physical theories of universal origins think that God *did* create everything from nothing. In this way they're trying to come up with the *how* of the whole process.

Okay, on an entirely different note, I next want to look at your claim that no one will be successful at scientifically proving evolution. I'll venture that what you mean by this is that no one will successfully establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that biological macro-evolution can and has occurred to bring us to where we are now. One first thing to mention is that you can't "prove" anything with science as you can in mathematics using axioms and logical deductions. As you'll hear just about every time this topic is debated, scientists mainly *disprove* explanations, and by ruling out explanations they strengthen their confidence in the prevailing explanation. There's always the possibility that new evidence will come in and entirely invalidate the existing theory. Many people look at this as a weakness, but it's really not. The framework for evolutionary biology has *withstood* all of the tests which could have shaken it. I don't mean that scientists agree on the mechanisms for evolution; I mean the fact that evolution *has* occurred and is on-going. We keep coming across evidence that doesn't seem to fit in (or *not* being able to find evidence that would help *other* pieces of evidence fit in better), and at any given point in time there's a massive collection of such. This doesn't suggest that the main framework of the theory is shaky. I'd venture to say it merely suggests that reconstructing the entire history of the development of life is an astronomically large and complex task. Hopefully we'll get it all under wraps eventually.

I wonder if you could elaborate on what you mean when you say, paraphrased, "evolution is not as compatible with science as popular opinion holds," particularly if it's not a point I addressed immediately above. Actually, I think that in the public view, it's probably the reverse. Popular opinion on evolutionary science is fairly pessimistic. The important distinction is that it's popular opinion, not the opinion of those involved in the business. "Evolution" is getting a beating in the PR war. Ultimately I think it won't matter.

> > I have no problem with those who believe in creationism on the basis of their faith. I don't understand it, but that's fine.
>
> Likewise, I have nothing against people who disbelieve intelligent design.
>
> >I do have an issue with those who would disguise faith as science in a very deliberate effort to undermine the teaching of science in public schools, which is precisely what the ID advocates (and here I distinguish between believers and those who claim to be ID researchers) are doing.
> >
>
> And I have issue with those who present evolution as the only "right" way to think. I see nothing wrong with explaining both views and allowing children to form their own opinions over time. It might force a little critical thinking about the world and oneself, which seems to be rare in most schools today.
>

Here's another good issue. Let me go over a few small points:

(1) No one should be saying that the only right way to think is to unquestioningly accept evolution. The more people that come up with new ways to challenge the theory, the stronger the theory will get (assuming the challenges fail) or the quicker we get to the truth (assuming a challenge succeeds).

(2) At face value, here's nothing wrong with explaining "both views" assuming you mean evolutionary theory and creationism, but here let's put it in the context of education -- which brand of creationism? Just the flavor favored by those who design the curriculum? Do we just teach the students about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or do we also provide time for other special creation theories? If I get a group of people together and we come up with a thousand different stories of creation, do those need to be taught as well?

(3) There is a limited amount of time to instruct students in school. There is absolutely no way that every explanation for life's diversification can be covered in this time.

(4) Creationism is not science. I can't imagine any remaining dissent to this -- it has shifted to intelligent design in recent years. That said, I can't imagine that you can argue that it should be taught in a science class. In a philosophy or history course, yes. The question is whether or not it's important enough to be taught in one of those courses. I say yes. However, there's really not much to be said about it if you try to generalize the idea of special creation. You'd have to pick a flavor (let's say the Christian one) to have enough detail to cover. And that's fine -- that's perfect for a focused religion or history course which can be taken as an elective. The problem I have is when you combine the two -- picking a flavor of creationism AND making it part of the core curriculum.

> Also, creationism, when taught correctly, does anything but undermine teaching science. For instance,I was homeschooled through a Christian school, and my high school science curriculum was a far better course (clearer and more in depth) than any I have had in college. The intelligent design aspect came into play through Bible passages that supported the theories being related in the textbook. I'm not advocating public schools' programs being structured in this way, but it would be interesting to see the results of adapting it.
>
> That said, I will admit that there are creationists who act as if creationism is the antithesis of science. All I can say is that they must have never read the Bible. Those of us with actual brains think one supports the other.
>
> > Stephen
> >
> > P.S. I am willing to discuss whether the study of evolution is scientific, [snip]
>
> Which is really the only point I was debating.
>
> LaZ