I'm not missing anything. You avoided my challenge and then you state as if it were self evident that "there is no way to determine probabilistically that living beings are more likely to have been a product of ignorant chance than by intelligent design." I think you are missing something. And, you did this immediately after I pointed you to a site where there exists a scientific proof that living beings can be produced by what you always describe as "random ignorant chance." Because a scientist thinks something is "random" does that mean it is actually random? Is it logically possible that there was a pattern unseen to the scientist? It is not as if we haven't seen in the past scientist claim to not see patterns, only to learn as deeper information comes along that there was in fact a pattern all along. If you look at a table of computer generated random numbers, that was by design..... So, on one side of the scale we have a scientific proof of the capability of evolution to deliver the very thing that you state is impossible, i.e., complexity from disorder, and on the other side we have you and the other proponents of ID proclaiming that it is not possible, but providing no scientific proof, and merely basing their proclamation on the weight of their respective personal experiences and belief systems. On the one side of the scale we have people believing complexity is coming from disorder, when in fact they don't know if there wasn't order underlying what they viewed as disorder. These concept of random is a projection of the mind, and is often the result of ignorance of all data. All available data is not the same as all data. Evolution works and produces the desired result. Desired result? Who or what exactly is desiring this result you speak of? Could God have started the process? Of course, and there's no reason why this can't be stated as an unknowable possibility. Then start stating it today in biology classes, why not?
I see no words or explanations in any quote you give, that do other than express the understandings of the people who wrote them. They do not represent whatsoever, any actual findings recorded as fact or scientific Theory, that deals with questions of creation or God or religion. There is quite simply no reference to creation God or religion in any scientific Theory or scientific biological findings. All those statements and sentiments reflect what those people anticipate to be the case, given the information available to them. None of it is suitable to be taught as science or biology and indeed as far as I know, no school would or certainly should, allow anyone to teach children "Man is the result of a purposeless process". That is not biology. Neither is "Man is the result of a purposeful process" biology or science either. ps. You are a Mod and you may know I have the highest esteem for ( i unquestioningly suck up to) Mods and Admin and if you say evolution means creation... then it does!! Merry Holiday and a Happy New Year
So, lemme get this straight. The jews are using Federal District Court Judge John Paul Jones III (a G.W. Bush appointee, and definitely as "goy" as mayo), as a pawn to undermine the notion that Christ is Lord. If that's your position, then I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
You keep falling back on "Nobody can prove me wrong, so I can believe whatever I want." What you're missing is that it's unnecessary to prove you're wrong, i.e., that there isn't a designer in order to demonstrate that evolution works. Evolution is proven to produce order from chaos without evoking a supernatural actor. Period. That a supernatural actor may or may not have designed evolution is irrelevant in a science class, because such speculation is not science...it's philosophy. If you allow your philosophy into a science curriculum, then you must permit investigation of astrology, numerology, palmistry, alchemy, etc., because all of these ancient metaphysical arts are the product of the identical philosophic view that you propose, i.e., "Nobody can prove me wrong, so I can believe whatever I want."
My "philosophy" doesn't exclude anything but the notion that life is the product of random ignorant unplanned chances is not supported by fact. There is no need at all to push a particular God or particular path, just to have the kids aware that there are two possibilites, neither of which is known as fact, nor is any test known to establish such facts. I oppose untrained indoctrinated kids embracing science as a replacement for religion because the "scientists" think that is the right thing to do, and I oppose religion restricting the job of science because that is what some religions group thinks. And I contest your theory that "Evolution is proven to produce order from chaos without evoking a supernatural actor." Until such time that you can exclude that a "supernatural actor" isn't behind the scenes, it just an ignorant guess. It is not a knowledgeable conclusion, it is a conclusion from ignorance. Science has a tendency to reach its limit of knowledge and declare "Eureka, now we know it all" but history has shown the folly of this thinking perpetually. The concept of chaos and order are directly related to the degree that man can determine order and chaos. What was once thought to be chaos in science was later discoveded to actually be an order of a deeper magnitude.
You can contest my "theory" all you want, but until you falsify Schneider's mathematical model, your contest is no more viable than your horoscope in today's paper. Schneider's model proves that evolution can do exactly what you say it cannot do, produce order from chaos. Tomorrow, someone may falsify Schneider's work, just as tomorrow someone may falsify Einstein or Heisenberg, etc. But, until that occurs, all of these scientific "theories," form the bases of modern understanding, whereas your attempt to invoke Aristotelian logic to explain the universe remains discarded on the ash heap of history.
What you call evolution, I called the planned consequence of the organizing power of life. I see no chaos at all, I just see an ignorance of a deeper order.
"kjkent1" meant "disprove" not "falsify". Learn English; learn to think clearly. Invoking some obscure scientist named Schneider is known as "appeal to authority"--rhetorical fallacy: read Aristotle.
Let's see kjkent makes the point a designer is irrelevant in a science class, for the reason, any such speculation is not science. Zzz's says, you have to put the possibility of designer in the science class because it is a possible speculation that science does not deal with. So you have to put ID into science because it is not science and is a possible speculation irrelevant to the subject.
That's fine, but it's philosophy, not science. We have no disagreement in philosophy. The disagreement is whether philosophic observations should be permitted to invade science. I say no, because if it is permitted, then science loses the reason to continue to search for answers, because all answers are provided a priori, i.e., "God did it." I concede, God may have done it all. But, from the perspective of science, God's presence is irrelevant, because no science can test for God's existence. At the moment that God becomes available for inspection via scientific methods, God simultaneously becomes part of the natural universe, and ceases to be God.