The difference is simple, and ENTIRELY about science.
Random evolution has, as I understand it, been viewed in operation, albeit on a small scale. We have actually seen random mutation produce changes in living organisms, and until we can observe an intelligent designer in action, defying the laws of physics as we know them, we are stuck with a theory that holds up under scrutiny.
Science NEVER requires the intervention of a deity to get you from point A to point B, or to fill in the gaps. Science is about observation, hypothesis, and testing. It's an iterative process, and when you teach science, you're teaching not just what we've learned from applying the process, you're teaching the process itself.
A theory holds until a better one comes along that does a better job of explaining the facts as they are observed.
ID *cannot* be tested. Therefore it is not science.
It's philosophy, and I have no problem with teaching it there, but to pretend it's science? Sorry, it is not.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-22 06:03 pm (UTC)Random evolution has, as I understand it, been viewed in operation, albeit on a small scale. We have actually seen random mutation produce changes in living organisms, and until we can observe an intelligent designer in action, defying the laws of physics as we know them, we are stuck with a theory that holds up under scrutiny.
Science NEVER requires the intervention of a deity to get you from point A to point B, or to fill in the gaps. Science is about observation, hypothesis, and testing. It's an iterative process, and when you teach science, you're teaching not just what we've learned from applying the process, you're teaching the process itself.
A theory holds until a better one comes along that does a better job of explaining the facts as they are observed.
ID *cannot* be tested. Therefore it is not science.
It's philosophy, and I have no problem with teaching it there, but to pretend it's science? Sorry, it is not.