Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What would it even be?

DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 10:12:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What would people teach if every school taught creationism to the same extent of evolution?

It seems like: "God did it". Is really all you could say...

But really, what would you teach students?
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 10:51:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 10:12:44 AM, DudeStop wrote:
What would people teach if every school taught creationism to the same extent of evolution?

It seems like: "God did it". Is really all you could say...

But really, what would you teach students?

Actually very little would be taught about creation, the focus would be more on having a moral compass and the consequences of ones actions. There is really nothing to teach about a higher being creating everything. You either look around,see how complex things are and consider the possibility, or you don't. That is how it was before it was banned from schools. One only need look at the past to answer your question. Evolutionist kicked it out of schools because creation was getting in the way of their personal lives and behavior.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
oculus_de_logica
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 12:46:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You'd be surprised how easy it is to make an extensive teaching course about everything.

You can simply say "God did it" and leave it at that, But if we take it a bit away from the literal it would be possible to discuss Creationism as a theory, the history of creationism, important figures in creationism and so on. You can discuss the story of the garden of Eden on a metaphorical level, what lessons you can draw from what parts. You can discuss the drive of the characters, the evolution of the story from age to age if such records even exists. You can try and connect the story to our modern times and lives and you can then of course go a bit further and connect to the rest of the Bible, almost like how History is taught today.

I'm not saying that it would be a fun class nor that it would serve any purpose to it's pupils, but extending it and making something 'real' out of it is entirely plausible.
<( o_o )>
DudeStop
Posts: 1,278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 5:03:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 12:46:56 PM, oculus_de_logica wrote:
You'd be surprised how easy it is to make an extensive teaching course about everything.

You can simply say "God did it" and leave it at that, But if we take it a bit away from the literal it would be possible to discuss Creationism as a theory, the history of creationism, important figures in creationism and so on. You can discuss the story of the garden of Eden on a metaphorical level, what lessons you can draw from what parts. You can discuss the drive of the characters, the evolution of the story from age to age if such records even exists. You can try and connect the story to our modern times and lives and you can then of course go a bit further and connect to the rest of the Bible, almost like how History is taught today.

I'm not saying that it would be a fun class nor that it would serve any purpose to it's pupils, but extending it and making something 'real' out of it is entirely plausible.

Why the bible?
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 5:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 10:51:58 AM, sadolite wrote:

Actually very little would be taught about creation, the focus would be more on having a moral compass and the consequences of ones actions. There is really nothing to teach about a higher being creating everything. You either look around,see how complex things are and consider the possibility, or you don't. That is how it was before it was banned from schools. One only need look at the past to answer your question. Evolutionist kicked it out of schools because creation was getting in the way of their personal lives and behavior.

That belongs in a philosophy or ethics class, not a science class, first off.

And evolutionists, the majority of whom are Christian, did not kick out because it was "interfering with their personal lives". They kicked it out because it was a blatant attempt to make a (semi-)literal interpretation "scientific".

Sciences should not teach morality, at all. They teach how to understand what currently exists, and why and how it operates. It should not tell you "stealing is wrong", that is for philosophy and personal ethics.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 6:04:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 5:47:55 PM, Clarity wrote:
At 2/8/2014 10:51:58 AM, sadolite wrote:

Actually very little would be taught about creation, the focus would be more on having a moral compass and the consequences of ones actions. There is really nothing to teach about a higher being creating everything. You either look around,see how complex things are and consider the possibility, or you don't. That is how it was before it was banned from schools. One only need look at the past to answer your question. Evolutionist kicked it out of schools because creation was getting in the way of their personal lives and behavior.

That belongs in a philosophy or ethics class, not a science class, first off.


And evolutionists, the majority of whom are Christian, did not kick out because it was "interfering with their personal lives". They kicked it out because it was a blatant attempt to make a (semi-)literal interpretation "scientific".

Sciences should not teach morality, at all. They teach how to understand what currently exists, and why and how it operates. It should not tell you "stealing is wrong", that is for philosophy and personal ethics.

"That belongs in a philosophy or ethics class, not a science class, first off."

Hey I am just the messenger, I am telling you how it was when creation was taught in schools. Creation teaches that a moral compass and personal behavior are more important to society than knowing how life started. Sorry it upsets you, but that is the way it was before evolutionists took over the education system. Now all that matters is knowing the origin of life and personal behavior and moral compasses are all relative. It's really just a reversal of what is important. Knowing how life started wont help me one iota in my endeavors of life. It is quite possibly at the very bottom of the list of things to consider in life's endeavors. For me anyway. I could really care less, It won't help me pay bills or raise my children it wont help anyone. But a strong moral character and controlled personal behavior will. OK, now average Joe knows how life started, now what? Who friken cares except those who are obsessed with it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 6:09:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 6:04:50 PM, sadolite wrote:

Now all that matters is knowing the origin of life and personal behavior and moral compasses are all relative.
Well it is pretty dependent on the individual. That is exactly how it should be.
It's really just a reversal of what is important. Knowing how life started wont help me one iota in my endeavors of life.
It can have pretty big moral consequences.
It is quite possibly at the very bottom of the list of things to consider in life's endeavors.
No, there are far worse.
For me anyway. I could really care less, It won't help me pay bills or raise my children it wont help anyone.
It has lead tot he understanding of evolution, which allows for a greater understanding of disease, agriculture, and genetics in general.
But a strong moral character and controlled personal behavior will.
Which should not be taught in a science class.
OK, now average Joe knows how life started, now what? Who friken cares except those who are obsessed with it.
Well, for one he can't go on and claim everything in the Bible is literally true, and needs to make reasons why the Bible would not be.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 6:11:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 6:04:50 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 2/8/2014 5:47:55 PM, Clarity wrote:
At 2/8/2014 10:51:58 AM, sadolite wrote:

Actually very little would be taught about creation, the focus would be more on having a moral compass and the consequences of ones actions. There is really nothing to teach about a higher being creating everything. You either look around,see how complex things are and consider the possibility, or you don't. That is how it was before it was banned from schools. One only need look at the past to answer your question. Evolutionist kicked it out of schools because creation was getting in the way of their personal lives and behavior.

That belongs in a philosophy or ethics class, not a science class, first off.


And evolutionists, the majority of whom are Christian, did not kick out because it was "interfering with their personal lives". They kicked it out because it was a blatant attempt to make a (semi-)literal interpretation "scientific".

Sciences should not teach morality, at all. They teach how to understand what currently exists, and why and how it operates. It should not tell you "stealing is wrong", that is for philosophy and personal ethics.

"That belongs in a philosophy or ethics class, not a science class, first off."

Hey I am just the messenger, I am telling you how it was when creation was taught in schools. Creation teaches that a moral compass and personal behavior are more important to society than knowing how life started. Sorry it upsets you, but that is the way it was before evolutionists took over the education system. Now all that matters is knowing the origin of life and personal behavior and moral compasses are all relative. It's really just a reversal of what is important. Knowing how life started wont help me one iota in my endeavors of life. It is quite possibly at the very bottom of the list of things to consider in life's endeavors. For me anyway. I could really care less, It won't help me pay bills or raise my children it wont help anyone. But a strong moral character and controlled personal behavior will. OK, now average Joe knows how life started, now what? Who friken cares except those who are obsessed with it.

I look at this question in terms of "Is it really something you want the answer to? You may not like the answer." Careful what you ask for, you just might get it and it wont be pretty.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 6:47:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Well, for one he can't go on and claim everything in the Bible is literally true," Ya he can, who's going to stop him? You? Maybe a govt gestapo squad?

I find it extremely hard to believe science anymore now that it has abandoned an absolute moral code and replaced it with a relative one that allows it to justify an end to a means by using exaggeration and outright deception. I still have faith in the mechanics of science where it has to either produce a result or it can't. But predictions and possible causes of health problems the climate and stuff like that, that govt will use to effect govt policy, I have no trust in science what so ever.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 7:59:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 6:47:57 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Well, for one he can't go on and claim everything in the Bible is literally true," Ya he can, who's going to stop him? You? Maybe a govt gestapo squad?
This has no relation to anything I said. It influences their religious and moral views, I don't know where you got I was trying to suppress that.
I find it extremely hard to believe science anymore now that it has abandoned an absolute moral code
Then don't pursue science, because it is supposed to observe without a moral code at all.
and replaced it with a relative one that allows it to justify an end to a means by using exaggeration and outright deception.
Uh, no, it doesn't. Absolute Nihilism does that, and that is philosophy, not science.
I still have faith in the mechanics of science where it has to either produce a result or it can't.
What?
But predictions and possible causes of health problems the climate and stuff like that, that govt will use to effect govt policy,:
You seriously, seriously, don't think the government should take scientific findings into account when making decisions?
I have no trust in science what so ever.
Then you base your opinions on fantastical whims and assumptions.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:25:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Creation Studies would be a bit of a misnomer. Such a course would undoubtedly highlight the open and unresolved claims of both systems of thought.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:31:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 5:47:55 PM, Clarity wrote:
At 2/8/2014 10:51:58 AM, sadolite wrote:

Actually very little would be taught about creation, the focus would be more on having a moral compass and the consequences of ones actions. There is really nothing to teach about a higher being creating everything. Y

That belongs in a philosophy or ethics class, not a science class, first off.


And evolutionists, the majority of whom are Christian, did not kick out because it was "interfering with their personal lives". They kicked it out because it was a blatant attempt to make a (semi-)literal interpretation "scientific".

Interesting gloss on the issue. But such a view assumes the "scientific nature" of evolutionary theory. Evolution - contrary to popular belief - is far from a "scientific theory". Rather, it is a metaphysical speculation project. As such, it - in and of itself- hardly wears the mantle of hard science without an asterix.
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:35:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 8:31:52 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

Interesting gloss on the issue. But such a view assumes the "scientific nature" of evolutionary theory. Evolution - contrary to popular belief - is far from a "scientific theory". Rather, it is a metaphysical speculation project. As such, it - in and of itself- hardly wears the mantle of hard science without an asterix.
Not really. Microevolution, which has been observed in nature, is easy to use and prove more than anything else that these minor changes would become big ones as time goes on. Currently, no other theory possess as much evidence as evolution, and until another does, it is the most powerful theory when considering the beginning and continuation of life.
sadolite
Posts: 8,838
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:38:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I never understood why people answer every sentence rather than talk like real people do in person. It so dull. OK science is pure and scientists are not like other people and would never falsify or lie. One must be non human like to be a scientist and be devoid of all human vises and characteristics. It's possible that all the scientists in the world are like this.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:44:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Not really. Microevolution, which has been observed in nature, is easy to use and prove more than anything else that these minor changes would become big ones as time goes on. Currently, no other theory possess as much evidence as evolution, and until another does, it is the most powerful theory when considering the beginning and continuation of life.

Not to disagre with "change" but to call is evolution implies a telos of sorts- e.g. higher levels of differentiation. Current literature on epigenetics addresses the same data sets with very different conclusions. The issue, properly defined, is the relationship "microevolution" (to use the term) has with its much larger cousin - the 800 pound gorilla ( allusion mildly intended) in the room.

Evolution thus defined makes claims well beyond the empirical.
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:44:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 8:38:13 PM, sadolite wrote:
I never understood why people answer every sentence rather than talk like real people do in person.
Because this isn't a real life conversation and doing this allow for a much easier point by point debate.
It so dull.
Online discussions tend to not be very riveting to begin with.
OK science is pure and scientists are not like other people and would never falsify or lie.
When they lie, that isn't science. That is falsifying results.
One must be non human like to be a scientist and be devoid of all human vises and characteristics. It's possible that all the scientists in the world are like this.
Then you don't trust a scientist who states something to be true and then does not allow peer review.

Peer review exists precisely so scientists cannot simply lie.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:46:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Not to disagre with "change" but to call is evolution (sic)

Not to disagree with "change", but to call it evolution ...
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:48:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Peer review exists precisely so scientists cannot simply lie.

Interesting. How do you read Kuhn though?
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:48:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 8:44:14 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

Not to disagre with "change" but to call is evolution implies a telos of sorts- e.g. higher levels of differentiation. Current literature on epigenetics addresses the same data sets with very different conclusions. The issue, properly defined, is the relationship "microevolution" (to use the term) has with its much larger cousin - the 800 pound gorilla ( allusion mildly intended) in the room.

Evolution thus defined makes claims well beyond the empirical.
It is true that you cannot prove Macroevolution empirically. That is why it is a scientific theory, and not a scientific law.

Microevolution, since it is observed in nature, can logically(but not empirically) prove Macroevolution by simply stating Microevolution happens a lot over a long period of time.

This statement is generally considered true unless another theory comes along and disproves, by either proving life itself has not existed long enough, the planet is too young, or Microevolution is an isolated case. No evidence or theories valid enough have arisen, however.
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:50:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 8:48:12 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Peer review exists precisely so scientists cannot simply lie.


Interesting. How do you read Kuhn though?

I have not. Although the wiki seems quite interesting and I may in the future.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 8:55:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 8:48:59 PM, Clarity wrote:
At 2/8/2014 8:44:14 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

Not to disagree with "change" but to call is evolution implies a telos of sorts- e.g. higher levels of differentiation. Current literature on epigenetics addresses the same data sets with very different conclusions. The issue, properly defined, is the relationship "microevolution" (to use the term) has with its much la
It is true that you cannot prove Macroevolution empirically. That is why it is a scientific theory, and not a scientific law.

Microevolution, since it is observed in nature, can logically(but not empirically) prove Macroevolution by simply stating Microevolution happens a lot over a long period of time.

This statement is generally considered true unless another theory comes along and disproves, by either proving life itself has not existed long enough, the planet is too young, or Microevolution is an isolated case. No evidence or theories valid enough have arisen, however.

Well said. Thus, the issue becomes one of logical consistency. Thus, we may safely take the empirical justification for macro evolution safely off the table. In terms of logical consistency there are many competing claims. Lovelace and his Gaia hypothesis for one.

Why not present these macro-logical justifications side by side?
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 9:02:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 8:55:28 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Well said. Thus, the issue becomes one of logical consistency. Thus, we may safely take the empirical justification for macro evolution safely off the table. In terms of logical consistency there are many competing claims. Lovelace and his Gaia hypothesis for one.

Why not present these macro-logical justifications side by side?
Because that theory does not posit enough evidence for the existence pf Gaia. It does not have enough evidence to prove that the Earth seeks conditions for life, rather than having simply made them.

However, Evolution by natural selection is not even disputed by Lovelock, and many of the points, such as the environment and organisms mutually influencing each other, are true.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 9:24:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 6:47:57 PM, sadolite wrote:
"Well, for one he can't go on and claim everything in the Bible is literally true," Ya he can, who's going to stop him? You? Maybe a govt gestapo squad?

I find it extremely hard to believe science anymore now that it has abandoned an absolute moral code and replaced it with a relative one that allows it to justify an end to a means by using exaggeration and outright deception. I still have faith in the mechanics of science where it has to either produce a result or it can't. But predictions and possible causes of health problems the climate and stuff like that, that govt will use to effect govt policy, I have no trust in science what so ever.

Yeah screw science. Let just believe what ever is in the bible eh ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 9:37:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Because that theory does not posit enough evidence for the existence pf Gaia. It does not have enough evidence to prove that the Earth seeks conditions for life, rather than having simply made them.

However, Evolution by natural selection is not even disputed by Lovelock, and many of the points, such as the environment and organisms mutually influencing each other, are true.

Clarity, Again interesting. But you realize that you are arguing both sides of the issue. We already established that Macro- Evolution is not empirically justifiable. Rather, it is logical in its justification. Thus, it has the same epistemic status as Lovelace.

The notion of environment and organism influencing each other is pure "epigenetics"- a truth claim as logically consistant as natural selection.

Why not present all sides of the debate?
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 10:49:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 9:37:57 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Clarity, Again interesting. But you realize that you are arguing both sides of the issue. We already established that Macro- Evolution is not empirically justifiable. Rather, it is logical in its justification. Thus, it has the same epistemic status as Lovelace.

The notion of environment and organism influencing each other is pure "epigenetics"- a truth claim as logically consistant as natural selection.

Why not present all sides of the debate?
Much of what the hypothesis states is true, i.e.e the environmental and biological mutual influences. As long as it can be logically deduced from scientific observations(as in, organisms and the environment have influenced each others evolution[which the hypothesis states natural selection plays a large role]) than it should be taught.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:05:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Much of what the hypothesis states is true, i.e.e the environmental and biological mutual influences. As long as it can be logically deduced from scientific observations(as in, organisms and the environment have influenced each others evolution[which the hypothesis states natural selection plays a large role]) than it should be taught.

Clarity, Indeed. It should be admitted, right? But such logical inquiry extends to the role of natural selection itself. Understanding that "natural selection" is itself a logical construct and not an empirically verified fact, the debate, properly framed, focuses on consistency and coherence. The Intelligent Design advocates will undoubtedly want a place at the table, but viva la difference. As long as Scripture is not introduced as epistemic justification, then we have a truly rich and vibrant conversation.
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:07:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 11:05:00 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:
Clarity, Indeed. It should be admitted, right? But such logical inquiry extends to the role of natural selection itself. Understanding that "natural selection" is itself a logical construct and not an empirically verified fact, the debate, properly framed, focuses on consistency and coherence. The Intelligent Design advocates will undoubtedly want a place at the table, but viva la difference. As long as Scripture is not introduced as epistemic justification, then we have a truly rich and vibrant conversation.

Unfortunately for them, however, is that one cannot deduce intelligent design from biological observations.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2014 11:35:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago

Unfortunately for them, however, is that one cannot deduce intelligent design from biological observations.

Clarity, Intelligent Design does not need to have Genesis as source material. Rather, it simply posits that natural selection has logical competitors. Fred Hoyle explored this issue at length with his statistical probability analysis as a counterclaim to natural selection. The biological observations have several interpretations. Hence, the need for juxtaposition of potential truth claims on the data. ( i.e. Lovelock, ID, Gould, Darwin, etc)
Clarity
Posts: 46
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 1:36:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/8/2014 11:35:16 PM, Ipsofacto wrote:

Clarity, Intelligent Design does not need to have Genesis as source material. Rather, it simply posits that natural selection has logical competitors. Fred Hoyle explored this issue at length with his statistical probability analysis as a counterclaim to natural selection. The biological observations have several interpretations. Hence, the need for juxtaposition of potential truth claims on the data. ( i.e. Lovelock, ID, Gould, Darwin, etc)

It does however, rely on the assumption that a higher being designed the system. There is no reason to assume that, when the other theories provide just as much of a logical explanation. Intelligent Design, requiring a higher being, needs to first provide evidence of said higher being, or be able to logically prove it, before it can be taken seriously.
Ipsofacto
Posts: 164
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2014 8:14:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It does however, rely on the assumption that a higher being designed the system. There is no reason to assume that, when the other theories provide just as much of a logical explanation. Intelligent Design, requiring a higher being, needs to first provide evidence of said higher being, or be able to logically prove it, before it can be taken seriously.

Clarity, Here's where it gets interesting. As we established, the criteria for admission into serious discussion/debate ( or admission into textbooks) is no longer "empirical" evidence (e.g. Evolution fails that test). Rather, the guiding principle is logical coherence.

Intelligent Design passes such a test of coherence, as does Evolution. If one makes the appeal to Occam's Razor, which is a fair counter critique, then the truth claim of "natural selection" becomes equally suspect. Moreover, it opens evolution up to the Fred Hoyle's challenge. Interestingly, some of the data then becomes more easily explained then under an non-evolutionary explanation. Namely, the problem of irreducible complexity which becomes more satisfactorily explained under ID and Gaia, than Darwin's claim.

Moreover, ID solves the "punctuated equilibrium" of evolution- which is not supported by the data, nor evidence. Clearly, punctuated equilibrium is an argument from silence, which undermines evolution's claim of being both empirical and logically coherent. On the other hand, Evolution has the avoidance of a "prime mover" or first cause going for it. But some have argued that it relies on Big Bang Cosmology which has its own set of logical inconsistencies.

In the end, as we established, the criteria for admission into scientific canon is no longer empirical certitude, but rather logical coherence. Thus, to be logically consistent, textbooks should contain "all" systematic attempts to "save the phenomenon"," (e.g. Duhem and Popper), or "none."