JTWood wrote:Fact - Scientifically, an organism (asexual) or organisms cannot be shown to be able to reproduce into anything more complicated than itself/themselves.
I think you need to define your notion of complexity.
It's a very interesting topic because it is a question that touches both scientific and philosophical ideas. I don't agree that the teaching of evolution necessitates the teaching of ID. I think that evolution is fundamentally unproven and shouldn't be taught in the first place.
There is an incredible body of evidence in favor of evolution. The act of proving a theory is science, no? Do lab experiments or field experiments that show speciation not count as science? It is unproven, yes, but jesus will you look at the body of work from folks who have sought out to prove and/or disprove it. Saying "that's not science" is like pointing at the sun and saying "that's not bright."
StlSluggers wrote:What I don't believe in is the idea that one thing can undergo a series of miniscule mutations over a long span of time and then suddenly become something 100% different.
Nothing becomes 100% different from its ancestors. A tree doesn't become a bird, keep that in mind. But new species are born out of old species, and this has been observed. In plants, insects, fish and mammals alike. Macroevolution is certainly harder to prove than microevolution, but it isn't all that different, just on a different scale.
I've heard the claim that ID isn't in contention with ToE, and to me this assertion makes perfect sense. But much of the ID literature I've read attacks evolution. The whole notion of irreducible complexity would seem to go against the possibility of evolution. So which is it??