How do we know what "design theory" requires unless you explain what it is? You have stated that you don't "spout the party line," which suggests that you aren't advocating the Discovery Institute's version of ID. So, if not, then what exactly do you want taught? Are you simply content with, "Kids, it all may be designed," or what? Specified complexity is provably false. Irreducible complexity requires an extended period of time to occur, in which case, it will be measured as nothing more than an evolutionary process by any scientific observer. The only other possibility is Irreducible Complexity by instantaneous creation, and that is magic, not design theory. So, having removed specified complexity and long term irreducible complexity from the scientific landscape, we are left with instant creation by supernatural force, which you contend is not required. If, as you say, instantaneous creation is not required, then that leaves the biology teacher wondering what it is that you propose should be taught, because all of the known possibilities are eliminated.
You edited your post, so I'll respond again. There is no design theory of which I am aware that does not appeal to supernatural forces/magic to obtain a result that could not otherwise occur. So, if you have a specific one in mind, that does not require magic, then please identify it for us. As for your theory that aging and death demonstrates design, that may be true, but your theory doesn't discredit evolution -- it merely suggests that abiogenesis was an intentional act. However, evolution, as a process is routinely witnessed in the lab (Lenski, Weinstein, et. al.), and your continually stating that it's unfalsifiable doesn't change the fact that it occurs And, don't come back with some crack that you don't see any elephants growing in bacteria dishes. As we've already discussed, huge changes in an organism require a very long time to take place, because otherwise the organism would be destroyed under the force of the power requirements necessary to effect the change over an extremely attenuated timeframe.
My design theory did not appeal to any supernatural force. I posted comments in this thread from an author who suggested that aliens may have created life here on earth, or even some advanced human beings from a time long ago. Some have even theorized that the life cycle itself is an eternal condition, having no "programmer" just the eternal programming of the life cycle and nature of biological organisms. We are discussing biological life in this thread, not the creation of the universe. So no, there is no need for a "supernatural force" necessarily. As I see it, ID doesn't require God, ID simply logically suggests that order comes from order, not chaos, and design is a good and very logical possibility. Your concept of supernatural is very weak in my opinion, as anything that is not known today would be considered supernatural, when in fact is may just be a natural force that scientists have not discovered. A man's ability to fly like James Bond did in Thunderball with the jet pack would have been considered supernatural by early Americans in the 18th century, but it is not, and was not supernatural at all. When it comes to teaching some form of ID, in every case, in every possible ID theory though, it boils down to design, or non design....planned or unplanned....for a purpose or purposeless. I seriously doubt any educated thinking person would fail to understand the importance of this issue as it relates to how people view life and their world. As a society do we want the public school systems influencing children to answer these questions for themselves in a particular manner due to the indoctrination of either atheistic or theistic theories? The implications on morality, ethics, a sense of purpose in life, etc. which come from a particular belief in the origin of life are very far reaching. We see ET member ReardenMetal admit that his depression is to some extent due to his atheism. We have seen nihilistic leaders kill and exterminate life and justify it because in their mind life had no purpose and meaning. A wide variety of issues and legal conclusion are based on the valuation and meaning of life, of what life really is in the opinions of mankind. This is exactly why I really don't want either theistic thinking, or atheistic thinking taught to kids in school. Yes, Darwinism is atheistic in nature, and it is not coincidence that so many defenders of Darwinism are atheistic. A kid in school asks where do all the species come from? A teacher then has a choice to tell the child the truth, or to tell them a story they believe perhaps to be true. The correct answer to the question of where do all the species come from, scientifically speaking is "we don't know".....not some scientists believe..... It is this indoctrination into a belief system of Darwinism, when it is not necessary to teach the process of biological organisms. Science is here to give us answers, not spread some dogmatic thinking. I have said this I don't know how many times now, but my desire is to teach nothing but observable fact in science class (no one has observed macro evolution...and yes there is a missing link). No teaching of Darwinism would be nice, and if that doesn't happen, then to be fair, teach non Darwinism, i.e. that life is from order and design, if not from a plan or some creator. p.s. "As we've already discussed, huge changes in an organism require a very long time to take place." This statement presupposes that complex organism do make macro level changes into other species, where there is no empirical evidence that they necessarily do, or that these species evolved from lower species by a process of natural selection on the basis of chance. Your presupposition is exactly the type of belief system that I don't want taught in schools. I want facts to be taught in public schools, not some presupposition based theory used to support an argument that is ineligible to submit to falsification. p.p.s: "However, evolution, as a process is routinely witnessed in the lab (Lenski, Weinstein, et. al.), and your continually stating that it's unfalsifiable doesn't change the fact that it occurs." Change on a micro level takes place as micro organisms employ the biological characteristic of adaptation in order to survive. No one doubts that biological organisms seek to survive, in fact this survival instinct is part of my argument for design. If this was all by chance, then it is reasonable that we would have seen a mutation out of this survival instinct, but that has never happened....each and every single organism has this characteristic. As far as the leap from this micro level adaptation to macro evolution, there is not single example of observed macro evolution. No empirical proof at all. Changes occur on a micro level, no argument there. The conclusion that this change is "evolution" and part of some force of evolution, and is the basis of some imagined macro evolution into different species, is not a fact, it is a speculative unfalsifiable theory.
Rofl, what do you do when you're losing at chess, stand up and wander off, singing "la la la la la"? At least have the kahoneys to tip your king.
Well, that's an old philosophical question you're hitting there. How can order arise from chaos? The problem with asking that question is with not realizing that the two arise mutually. The observation of one immediately creates the other. Alan Watts explained it so well, to my mind. Conscious attention is like looking through a gap in a fence, you see through it only a tiny slice of reality at a time. A cat passes by, and locked into the cause and effect, Time and space are seperate mode of thinking, we conclude that the event "head" causes the event "tail". There IS something marvelous happening, but our descriptions must necessarily fall short of capturing it. But they can reflect it honestly, even if they must eventually fail to reflect the present moment they once described, IF we don't update them, ie., keep dancing. The thing about science is that it's more completely understood as a history of reality, constructed with a definite purpose in mind, and it must be taken in its entirety to "get current" with reality. To say that, "this is all God" is, admittedly, in my view correct. But then what? This discussion is (was) about teaching ID in the classroom, particularly in the science classroom, but what are you going to say about It? Om? Why do that in science class? The discussion belongs in philosophy class, if Comparative Religion is not available.
And I seriously doubt any educated thinking person would fail to see the parallels with the old belief that demons caused disease, that an intelligent designer caused lightning, and the earth was the center of the universe. There was a time when these things were felt as having implications on morality, ethics, and sense of purpose. For example, how dare some upshot person tell kids that lightning forms naturally and isn't the directed fury of god? Diminishing the reaches of god's retribution will surely lead to practices of immorality! Or that the earth is not the center of the universe - are they trying to turn kids into atheists? This issue is of the same ilk. I imagine in 500 years time skepticism of evolution will be as rare as skepticism of a sun orbiting earth. But just as acceptance of a heliocentric solar system did not turn everyone into atheists, neither will evolution. No it isn't. Given the scarcity of atheists I feel safe to say that the majority of people who accept evolution also believe in god. In a science class the answer is to give the consensus view of scientists, so the answer given should be evolution. Right, but you are just claiming "darwinism" is dogmatic thinking without giving a reason why it is anymore dogmatic than any other scientific theory. I could equally claim atomic theory is dogmatic thinking just because so many physicists believe it. Noone has observed an electron either, noone has observed a full orbit of pluto. "missing link" is a meaningless phrase unless you specify what the link is between. There is plenty of empirical evidence for common descent, hence why so many IDists accept it. Do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old too? My point is that some people do believe that, they believe that the old earth geologists have figured out is wrong. They would say they don't want old earth dogmatism taught in schools, they don't want atheistic old earth theories taught to kids. All they want is the facts taught you see "not some presupposition based theory used to support an argument that is ineligible to submit to falsification". The problem is that I don't see why your argument against evolution is any more valid than the argument of young earth creationists use against old earth geology. Why on earth should survival instinct disapear if evolution was true? I suspect you are defining macroevolution as "anything we haven't observed" and then claiming we haven't observed macroevolution as an argument. That is circular reasoning. First define exactly what macroevolution is in genetic terms. Speciation has been observed, plenty of empirical evidence supports it (ring species for example). If that is macroevolution (and the biological definition of macroevolution is evolution above the species level) then macroevolution has indeed been observed.
And I seriously doubt any educated thinking person would fail to see the parallels with the old belief that demons caused disease, that an intelligent designer caused lightning, and the earth was the center of the universe. There was a time when these things were felt as having implications on morality, ethics, and sense of purpose. For example, how dare some upshot person tell kids that lightning forms naturally and isn't the directed fury of god? You know lightening is not the directed fury of God? Really.... Diminishing the reaches of god's retribution will surely lead to practices of immorality! It likely will lead to a different morality. Or that the earth is not the center of the universe - are they trying to turn kids into atheists? Yes, I think the scientific community has an agenda to turn kids into atheists, or at least the type of theist that they scientifically approve of. Science has become the bottom line for the scientific community, yet science is not an independent power set apart from man, it is a creation of man, and we all know man is deeply flawed in many, many ways. Most would agree that power tends to corrupt, and scientific power/dogma is not much different in this respect. We have a few that have been put into intellectual power by the masses, and they are want to abuse that power in the name of "science." This is not a new story, it is the story of man's desire to influence others through the power they have. One of the checks against science is skepticism, yet the Darwinists seem to have looked the other way in their enthusiasm at this most important tool of in the scientist's bag. Teach the kids how to think critically and skeptically, especially of theories that are not falsifiable. This issue is of the same ilk. I imagine in 500 years time skepticism of evolution will be as rare as skepticism of a sun orbiting earth. That is your imagination. But just as acceptance of a heliocentric solar system did not turn everyone into atheists, neither will evolution. No, it will not turn everyone into an atheist, as some will have the common sense to understand that science reaches a limit, then postulates that it has achieved knowledge. No it isn't. Given the scarcity of atheists I feel safe to say that the majority of people who accept evolution also believe in god. Scarcity of atheists? Are they an endangered species? LOL... In a science class the answer is to give the consensus view of scientists, so the answer given should be evolution. There is no need to give a "consensus" view in order for children to learn about biological processes. This is the issue. Teaching a "consensus view" is indoctrinating children with scientific opinion, not teaching them the facts of life. Right, but you are just claiming "Darwinism" is dogmatic thinking without giving a reason why it is anymore dogmatic than any other scientific theory. I am not saying it is any more or less dogmatic than other unfalsifiable theories. Big bang theory, another unfalsifiable theory, is certainly taught by some teachers with full zeal and dogmatism. I could equally claim atomic theory is dogmatic thinking just because so many physicists believe it. Atomic theory has quite a bit of math behind it, and there is consistency in the use of language. Most physicists know the history of theories being blown to hell as knowledge deepens, so they are much less dogmatic. They have learned their lesson, something lost on many biological thinkers. Noone has observed an electron either, noone has observed a full orbit of pluto. "missing link" is a meaningless phrase unless you specify what the link is between. Missing link is very meaningful, we have all seen the drawings: <img src=http://www.dispuuttau.nl/content/staut/pictures/ape-to-man.png> There is plenty of empirical evidence for common descent, hence why so many IDists accept it. Common descent? Sure, a commonality of a designer and/or programming, not evidence of random chance evolution. Do you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old too? No. My point is that some people do believe that, they believe that the old earth geologists have figured out is wrong. They would say they don't want old earth dogmatism taught in schools, they don't want atheistic old earth theories taught to kids. All they want is the facts taught you see "not some presupposition based theory used to support an argument that is ineligible to submit to falsification". The problem is that I don't see why your argument against evolution is any more valid than the argument of young earth creationists use against old earth geology. Do scientists theorize the age of the earth, or do the calculate the age of the earth based on carbon 14 dating? Of course, there is an acceptance that carbon 14 dating and other geological measurements are accurate, but quite frankly, there is a degree of speculation and possible error in those calculations. Why on earth should survival instinct disappear if evolution was true? Survival instinct, by evolutionary teaching, is a product of evolution. Survival instinct is not a product of design, but some random chance unplanned condition of some atomic particles eventually joining together and producing man. You can't look at the theory properly in parts, you have to look at the whole, the theory needs to explain the whole rise of life to its present state, and from the most basic forms of life to the most complex. If all this rising of life from non life by chance and random interactions of atomic particles, then it is just as probably that somewhere along the line species would have evolved out of the survival instinct. This of course has not happened. Species have not randomly, magically, chaotically, driven by chance altered their nature for survival, from birth, through lifespan, to death. The cycle continues unbroken, despite the passage of millions of years, and plenty of opportunity for these defining characteristics of biological organism to magically mutate into something else. I suspect you are defining macroevolution as "anything we haven't observed" and then claiming we haven't observed macroevolution as an argument. That is circular reasoning. First define exactly what macroevolution is in genetic terms. Who said macro evolution must be defined in genetic terms? You? Lol. We have not seen complex biological species evolved into different species. We have not seen a fish evolve into a land loving lizard. We have not seen a monkey evolve into a human being. I know, I know, the excuse or rationalization is that "it takes time" for this to happen. How do you know? You don't know, that is a guess and an admission of ignorance. Speciation has been observed, plenty of empirical evidence supports it (ring species for example). If that is macroevolution (and the biological definition of macroevolution is evolution above the species level) then macroevolution has indeed been observed. Not on the level of macro evolution of more advanced species. We see micro organisms adapt to environmental stress, but it is still not known if this adaptation is by design, or within the realm of possibilities of programming of the organisms. We really don't know if a "new" species has suddenly "evolved" or if the species is just presenting itself to us in one of its various and potential forms.