To sway a jury to a not guilty verdict, all the defense has to do is show reasonable doubt. All the IDer's need to show is reasonable doubt to open the door to allowing alternative theories to be presented. There is reasonable doubt as to the ultimate truth of the theory of evolution's suggestion that life is by chance and not design, therefore to exclude alternative theories is non sensical.
I beg to differ. Evolutionary theory strongly suggests that man descended from lower species. There is no religion that I know of that suggests man descended from lower species by a random chance process....except the religion of evolutionary worshipers. If something runs counter to religion and religious concepts and beliefs, then it is anti religion, i.e. atheism.
You ask them. It's your "scientific" hypothesis that they won't know that the drawing is ridiculous. Now you go out and make your case. However, assuming that I agree that 100 randomly selected people would view evolution as you describe, if you asked the same 100 people to explain how the image that you have just posted is displayed on their computer screen, I suggest that even more of them wouldn't have a clue. Furthermore, I doubt whether most of those 100 people could even begin to describe how a refrigerator cools, or a microwave oven heats their food. Your point is well taken, but you're not demonstrating an affirmative case for atheism in science class by it. You're merely demonstrating that the average person couldn't survive 5 minutes without someone else telling them what to do and how to think.
Your legal analogy is meaningless in this discussion. The "ultimate" truth is not provable under ANY burden of proof. The only thing that can be proven is what can be observed and tested in the natural universe. And in that context there is no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, as to the suggestion that life is anything other than a process of matter that occurs under suitable conditions, and which evolves while those conditions persist. The desire to introduce black magic into the science curriculum is what is nonsensical.
Beg all you want. It doesn't change the fact that rejecting the literal interpretation of Adam and Eve does not automatically reject the existence of a divine creator of the universe. It simply means that the creator either, (1) has used evolution to achieve life's diversity, or (2) has created a reality that intentionally misrepresents what actually took place in order to test the faithful. Either way, science only measures reality, not magic. Evolution is not the advancement of atheism.
If you're gonna resort to an ad hominem attack, I'm not gonna continue the discussion, so try to stick with facts to support your argument.
Science only measures what empiricism allows. Many will argue that much of the real experiences of life are not within the purview of empiricism.
That sucking sound was the last of Z10's credibility dying a pointless death. You are the only one on this thread who has made arguments from the stance of self-appointed authority. In fact your whole argument is based upon it. I know, I know Z's response - "I don't agree! What's that? The evidence is already in the thread and I can't go back and edit it out? I don't agree! After all, how many angels can fit on the head of a pin" "I don't like that question" "I refuse to answer that question" And my favourite from Z10 "I don't consider that question worth responding to" Yes, folks, it's all in the thread for anyone who cares to look.