Why isn't Intelligent design not allowed in public schools?

Well, Paul, it is no problem to go back to original populations genetically.

But it is an enormous problem to get one kind to change into another.

We have evidence for the first via hybridization, among other things.

We have no evidence, and only imagination, for the second.

 

This statement with slightly varied wording could apply to many if not most of the explanations provided by evolution... everything from a lack of a repeatable process a naturally occuring mechanism for macroevolution to explanations for why the geologic column as boldly represented in science books is an anomaly rather than the rule. </font>[/QUOTE]There are times when it seems we must dispair of the objector even understanding the issues to which he is objecting.

Scott, the anomoly problem UTE is pointing out is not an anomoly problem for evolution but an anomoly problem for the theory of seperate creation of species. It is therefore evidence against the seperate creation of species.

whether due to failure to understand or simply due to complete lack of any coherent response that would make scientific sense, your failure to come up with an explanation consistent with the theory of seperate creation of species is duly noted. </font>[/QUOTE]IOW's, when you can't contradict the truth of a statement... attack the character or intelligence of the opponent.

The point of my response is that evolution depends entirely on "improbable but not impossible" luck. So for him to oppose my idea on that basis is inconsistent.

"Duly noted"? I have given a framework. Disprove it rather than handwaving.

God created a perfect world that operated under conditions wholly different than now. Man's sin brought corruption and death to that pristine world. From the original set of divinely created biological forms, all present species descended... not by some speculative system of accummulating complexity but rather by the progressive decay and deterioration of all nature as it "groans" under the burden of man's sin.

When animals speciated from the original kinds, they did so by adapting then experiencing a loss of the genetic ability to adapt in other directions to the extreme that the original creatures could. The common result of mutation and deletion is the loss of genetic complexity... not the addition of it so there is an observable, repeatable process for what I propose as opposed to the unobserved (only assumed) process needed by evolution.

The difference in our proposals is that I suggest a starting point where an omnipotent, omniscient Designer provided all of the genetic information that would be needed at the start with the acceptance of the fact that entropy is occurring.(Definitions 3-5 before you respond http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=entropy)

Your proposal starts with the assumption that God was not necessary. It progresses to the purely speculative idea that simple forms gain information to become more and more and more complex... via a system that counts on things in nature becoming better and more organized in contradiction to the very laws of nature you say you depend on. But mechanisms for this supposed common "ascent" and improvement elude "scientists". For every proposed answer, there are countless contradictions.

For instance, we know that species genetically resist mutation on the order needed for evolution. They have a range of adaptation with boundaries that when breached... kill. Genes have quality control mechanisms that specifically work against the kind and frequency of mutation that evolution needs.

So why persist in demanding that the mechanism exists? Because the alternative is not acceptable... which once again demonstrates that evolution is dependent ultimately on metaphysical assumptions and not evidence.

 

If you don't want to fool with my lengthy response... Helen summarized well.