Reply #19: You have illustrated my point. [View All]

[trotsky]

Instead of addressing the validity of evolution, you instead attack "materialism" (which is not taught in science class, to my knowledge) as well as abiogenesis, which is also not officially part of evolution.

I love too how defenders of science and reason are now called "anti-ID proponents." Give me a break!

First, you say:

It therefore seems to be a wildly improbably speculation to suggest that the universe was able to somehow self-generate without a Creator.

This is known as the argument from ignorance. Since you personally can't imagine how something could be true, it therefore must be false. Well, I can't imagine how a god could be loving and caring and allow something like Katrina to happen, so therefore your god doesn't exist. Do you accept that? If not, why do you expect others to accept you using the same reasoning?

Next:

They object to the teaching of the theory that humans evolved from single-celled organisms through a wholly materialistic process, and that the single-celled organisms spontaneously appeared and came to life, and that the matter from which those single-celled organisms were formed also spontaneously appeared with no involvement of any Creator

Abiogenesis ("life" from "non-life") is a process separate from evolution. Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. It starts with the first instance of alleles (genes) in an organism. It takes no position whatsoever as to where that first organism came from.

while deliberately prohibiting the teaching of any alternative theory.

That's because "intelligent design" is not a theory. It doesn't offer any testable propositions, it doesn't explain anything, it doesn't yield any contribution towards understanding whatsoever.

from my point of view, the observation of the universe leads to the conclusion that there must have been a Creator, because matter, time, space and laws do not self-generate, and the universe seems to have all of the hallmarks that are recognized in other contexts as being indicia of something that has been created.

This is your opinion, and not based on scientific fact or thought process at all. Thus, it does not belong in a science class. "Because matter, time, space and laws do not self-generate" - says who? Are you an authority on this?

Countless people report having observed supernatural events and beings. Literally every culture of people that has ever lived on the planet has believed in the supernatural, I think it is safe to say.

Another logical fallacy - the argumentum ad populum, i.e. "the majority can't be wrong." I'm guessing this is something else I don't need to explain why it's silly - consider at one time that literally everyone once thought the earth was flat. Did that make it so? (By the way, you're wrong - there have been and are cultures that did not have god beliefs that you would recognize as such.)

Finally, you declare your deity off-limits for the same questions you raise for science. A simple declaration - no supporting evidence at all, no reasoning, just saying "This is so." Again, this is NOT SCIENCE and does not belong in a science class.

I respect your opinion too, but I will fight you with all my strength to keep your myths from being taught in my public schools. Teach them in your church where I will never interfere, and where they belong.