“The difference is: evolutionists look at the physical world ... and extrapolate that there is nothing else interacting with it.”
>>No, Erhardt: they most certainly do not. No theory of evolution , common descent (or for that matter no scientific theory of any sort) states or predicts that nothing else is interacting with the physical world.
What science employs is a methodological naturalism purely for reasons of utility: it limits derived explanations to natural mechanisms and forces—what we observe interacting in the physical world, if you will—because only by doing so do those explanations become predictive and falsifiable, making it possible to distinguish good explanations from a bad ones. If you elect instead to invoke speculative supernatural entities or forces any and all such entities will serve, and any and all such explanations possess identical explanatory power. “God did it” is indistinguishable from “Pixies did it”, “Leprechauns did it”, “Invisible space hamsters did it”, etc. in terms of their utility as explanations—the only reason to distinguish between them is subjective personal taste.)
“That's an assertion that requires burden of proof. (how do they know?) Biblical creationists look at the world, and see (and look for) evidence of a Great Flood - which would line up with their Biblical model.”
>>Exactly—they operate in an exactly opposite manner as doe scientists—they start from their conclusion (the biblical account of a global catastrophic flood is an accurate depiction of an actual historic event) and look for evidence to support that preferred conclusion (ignoring all the evidence that rebuts it along the way.
“Intelligent Design on the other hand...is more spooky.”
>>Intelligent design is a rhetorical fallacy termed an argument from ignorance—it posits that if we cannot deduce how something could arise in the absence of design it may only arise as the result of design.
“It simply questions specific things within the doctrine of evolution.”
>>What specific things are you talking about? The only thing I’m aware it questions is whether or not a wholly speculative intelligent designer, by means of a completely unidentified natural mechanism, intervened to direct evolution at some unspecified time or times in the past.
“One-picky-thing-at-a-time. This frusterates Evolutionists, who are out to prove something. It's an obstruction. Those darn questions. Darn doubt.”
>>Questions aren’t frustrating. Answering the same questions over and over, pointing out where they are wrong or as often pointing out where they don’t address evolutionary models in the first place, can become so.
“They KNOW, as does everyone instinctively that if our origin isn't an accident (if it is proven that our genetics are too improbable, statistically, to have been a mistake...)”
>>Evolutionary theories make no statement or prediction that our genetics arose as the result of a mistake.
“Then our form was by design.”
>>This isn’t the null hypothesis with respect to evolution: you’re offering a false dichotomy. The opposite of ‘evolution’ is ‘not evolution’, it isn’t ‘design’.
“Which requires a designer (a mind full of knowledge). Which requires a purpose for making us. Which leads to morality and identity.”
>>There’s no necessity for a designer or purpose in order for individuals to possess identity or to derive moral understanding.
“No, science doesn't teach these things. That would be a horrendous overreach. But it does POINT to it. Like the invisible finger in the pond.”
>>Science doesn’t point to morality—it often identifies possible consequences of acting in one way or another but that’s all. Estimations of whether those consequences are desirable or undesirable is a different issue.
“I believe the two should be "taught" side-by-side. There is evidence to back up evolution, intelligent design, and the biblical model for creation.”
>>there is evidence which supports evolution. I know of no evidence which credibly supports intelligent design. And all available evidence falsifies the world’s various creation myths (including the two presented in Genesis.)
“ All 3.”
>>Fine: let’s focus on creationism first: what objective evidence supports the premise that human beings arose without ancestry as the result of intervention by a supernatural deity commonly termed ‘god’? Be specific.
“And there is evidence that stands against these models. In actuality, intelligent design isn't a model, like the other 2. It is merely a line of questioning.”
>>Intelligent design isn’t even that—it’s an argument from equal parts incredulity and ignorance (known rhetorical fallacies.)
“Should we be teaching as DOGMA, what changes every 20 years?”
>>Evolutionary models don’t represent dogma: confidence in evolution isn’t a function of a will to believe a dogmatic premise but of evolutionary theory’s demonstrated ability to explain observations within its scope comprehensively and predictively.
“And get upset when it is challenged? That's not the way to be "big" about it.”
>>The only thing that is upsetting is dealing with the same invalid challenges over and over again.
“It's a line of questioning - one that is scientific, and ought to be welcome and dialogued with. Are you afraid?”
>>If ID is a scientific line of questioning, by what mechanism does the supposed intelligent designer realize their design, and what observations would be sufficient to falsify ID?
“I can see why the debate sparks such fear. Our religions are in the balance! Our morality & lifestyles, as well. This holds true for both sides. Neither side is science. Only metaphysical beliefs that science either supports or casts doubt on.”
>>Evolution is a scientific model, not a religious one. It does not derive from metaphysics but from a very large body of observations from multiple fields of inquiry—the fossil record and fossil transitional series, comparative anatomy, biogeographical distribution of species, genetic and peptide homologies, conserved retroviral insertions, etc. It does not pretend to inform morality any more than thermodynamics or the periodic table informs morality.
