Well, it seems we have much to discuss. This post might be a tad on the long side, but I just want to clear the air a little. Don't feel obligated to reply to some, or any of my points.
Again, I did not say it was a law. A said it was a theory, and even loosely defined what I meant by theory. It is not a law.I will give you the point about Darwinism being a law.
Well, I think if you're talking about "interpretation of data" what you mean to say is that you don't believe it can be demonstrated in ways that are compelling to you. And even the word "demonstrated" seems to be a little loosey goosey. What do you mean by demonstrated?I want to make it perfectly clear that we are talking about an interpretation of data. I place Darwin's idea as a hypothesis and not a theory because it cannot be demonstrated.
Such as? And by "he", do you mean Darwin, or the ToE he developed?In fact he predicted things that have not happened.
I am glad that you feel we can agree to disagree - I agree! But you haven't given me enough to go on here to which I could agree or disagree. What is it about the fossil record that you find objectionable? And to be clear, do you want to discuss evidences, fossils or radiometric dating methods if, in fact, we do disagree? Or are you simply happy to tell me that you find elements of geology and paleontology inconsistent or incomplete and leave it at that?The fossil record being the biggest stumbling block. You may feel otherwise and I have no problem with that.
Again, this is not what I said. I said - several times now - that if ID theory really does succeed in identifying IC structures - and further, if these structures can not be explained to have arisen through natural means and design is the only logical explanation, then it is my belief that ID will need to face some tougher questions regarding the identity, actions and possibly motives of the designer. I have further admitted that, to the best of my knowledge, IC structures have not been identified, but that this does not disqualify the notion that some might at some later date. Finally, I can see no a priori reason from either a scientific or a theological perspective to expect that IC should exist. I'm not "locking out a designer" pending their identity - I am simply saying that I have no reason, as yet, to believe that IC should exist in nature. And please understand that I am not ruling out the existence of god(s) with this statement.As for locking out a designer, it seems that it is you who won't allow a designer in until a name is attached to them.
Well, I have been rather mute on the motives of the architects of ID in developing their ideas. I have commented on the fact that they are not overtly candid about who they believe the designer to be, but do have an opinion on the matter. But if you would like to discuss the origins of the ID movement, I find this a particularly interesting topic and would be happy to explore it with you. For example, I think this idea has a genesis (pardon the pun) that is very different than most other scientific theories that exist. But that's just me.The motives of the ID group should not be considered. If so we should look at the motives of Darwin:
Now, as for your quotes - I have several thoughts on these, but let me limit them to the following: (1) are you certain that these are representative of Darwin's thinking or his motives in developing the ToE? Because I am a little tentative to believe either is the case. (2) As you point out, what can be done with an idea once it is developed is often not an indictment of the validity of the idea itself. Now, scientific ideas may be applied to social and political agendas in ways that are malicious and outright evil, but this does not render the ideas scientifically invalid. This is a relevant source of conversation, and we can explore social-Darwinism if it is interesting to you and does not violate the forum discussion guidelines. (3) I am curious as to whether you have read these quotes in their full context? Because it may be rather difficult to get a sense of someone's ideas if you cherry pick a few sentences from a larger body of text. I am not accusing you of such - however, let us dissect one of the quotes you provide.
This quote is a partial quote from The Descent of Man. I have indicated the parts you have quoted in bold font. The first thing to note is that Darwin is a product of his era - biological race was often confused with cultural race. That is, European civilization was considered civilized and Africans uncivilized or savage - pretty much the prevailing sentiment in the mid-19th century. You might as well call everyone who lived in the 1850's a racist - Darwin was simply a product of his time. Second, Darwin was not hoping for the extinction of any race - human or otherwise. He was arguing that intermediate forms of apes to humans ought to exist, but that extinction seems to be occurring which - at some point in the future - will result in intermediate forms becoming rarer. Finally, far from being a racist, Darwin often argued passionately against slavery. Consider this passage from the Voyage of the Beagle:The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies- between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
Hardly sounds like a racist to me. Sounds more like a disaffected emancipationist.It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves, to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave-owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter;—what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little children—those objects which nature urges even the slave to call his own—being torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder! And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin.
Why is this not the original intent? The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment seeks to insure religious freedom and prohibits government funded institutions from promoting one religion over another. I'm curious why you feel the rulings of the Supreme Court are inconsistent with the First Amendment and why this represents a miscarriage of justice. And I am still interested in knowing whether you think all creation theories should be taught in public schools?The supreme court has made law here with their interpretation of the establishment clause. This is not the original intent. That is the point I was making.
Well a biology teacher might tell you that it is both practical and important. They might argue that it is the cornerstone theory of biology, and we should teach it just as we teach E&M in physics and quantum mechanics in chemistry. And I also disagree about the relevance of evolution in every day life - but this thread seems to be getting out of hand so I will leave it at that.There are way more practical things to teach than evolution.