> In the case of astronomy, though, you are
>observing what is, not what was (not accounting
>for the time it takes the stars' light to reach
>us).

Do you reject other historical sciences, such as geology, archeology, paleontology, and even simple history, or just evolution? No matter what your answer, why do you feel this way?

> I agree. My point was that evolution is given
>far more credibility by the scientific community
>than it has earned. Everything being created
>from nothing by God is bunk, but everything being
>created from nothing by the Big Bang could
>perhaps be workable.

That's because science, by definition, rejects supernatural explanations. It does this because supernatural explanations are not subject to the scientific method of observe, hypothesize, predict, and experiment. You can't say "God did it" and expect to be included in any scientific debate because there's not a damn thing to debate. Your hypothesis makes no predictions, is untestable, and by definition is outside of science. However, if I say "the Big Bang did it", there are testable predictions that can be (and have been) made, and the tests will either support or refute the hypothesis (so far, support.)

> There will always be those who try to
>scientifically prove both evolution and
>intelligent design. I don't believe either will
>ever be successful. I do believe that
>creationism is more compatible with science than
>most people think and that evolution is not as
>compatible as popular opinion holds. As the
>evidence stands, what to accept as true is
>largely up to individual interpretation.

Everything is ultimately up to individual interpretation. I can decide that I don't believe the sun is going to come up tomorrow if I want. That doesn't change the fact that it's far more likely than not that the sun *will* come up tomorrow, despite what I choose to believe.

But if you want to talk evidence, if you want to talk testable predictions (and evolution has many, BTW), and if you want to talk science, then evolution wins over ID every time. There's no debate. One is science, and one isn't. One makes testable predictions and one doesn't. One has evidence and one doesn't. You can choose to believe whichever you want. But you can't debate which one is science and which isn't. If you still insist that you can, I suggest your science education wasn't as good as you think it was, because you fundamentally misunderstand what science *is*. That's not a knock on homeschooling or "Christian" education, either. My standard public school education didn't really do that great a job at this, either. I spent many years floundering around in the realms of pseudoscience and other hokum before I figured it out.

> And I have issue with those who present
>evolution as the only "right" way to think. I
>see nothing wrong with explaining both views and
>allowing children to form their own opinions over
>time.

The problem is, again, one is science, and one isn't. Teach ID in a class called "Christian Theology" and you're cool. Teach it in "Biology" and I take extreme exception to that.

Shifting gears a bit, I know one common objection to the rejection of the supernatural by science is the suggestion that the only things knowable can be known by science, and thus the supernatural either does not exist or isn't knowable. Personally, I believe this is true. Many, if not most of the people who come to RinkWorks, would disagree with that. But science does not deal with the supernatural pretty much by definition. The supernatural falls under the jusrisdiction of such diverse areas as religion, philosophy, spirituality, mysticism, and plain and simple personal belief. If you want to believe that a supernatural creator influenced evolution so that humans would evolve the way they did (I've heard many Christians, mostly Catholics, suggest this) then be my guest. But there's no evidence of that, since the fossil record firmly supports random mutation and natural selection, not "guided evolution." And there's sure no way to ever prove or disprove it.

Is it possible that supernatural explanations outside of science may be the correct explanations? Sure, it might be that way. But evolution doesn't seem to be one of those places. Plain old science seems to be doing just fine with the available evidence. There's no reason to think that the supernatural must be involved, because random mutation and natural selection, once examined critically, sure seems to fit the bill nicely.

-- Dave