DonaldM, look at it this way: say archaeologists did find unequivocal, unambiguous evidence that confirmed for every single scientist, famous and important religious miracle story X. Could you teach about it in public school science class? Of course, because although it would lead to some favoring of one religion approach over the other, its merit qua science would outweigh other considerations. Dubious and fringe stuff on the other hand, fergit it: its merit as science isn't enough to justify it being taught as science.

Recall the context of my post (science education, the Dover stuff).

Okay, but that doesn't really answer the question. You seem to have some sort of criterion in mind as to how we can determine when a scientific discovery has merit and when it doesn't. Based on your story example here, it appears the standard is when evidence is so overwhelming that no one could possibly deny it. Is that the standard you espouse? If so, you'd better be prepared to toss neo-Darwinism out of the science classroom. If it isn't, then please define the standers? Where is the line? How do we know when we've reached it? Majority vote?
Intuition? Please give me the details!

Great posts, but you have to remember that logic and reasoning have no place in this debate.

However a new year is almost upon us and with the new year comes renewed hope that logic & reasoning will find their way back"¦

It has always amazed me that those who hold science and scientific reasoning in such high regard, will quickley abandon all of it in order to defend their philosophy. Whether the new year brings logic and reasoning back to the discussion or not, I will continue to question bad reasoning when I see it.

If no one else responds to you that will confirm my story.

It appears you don't have a point at all- I mean if a once thought of miracle was tied to some religious event but then some time in the future the miracle was explained by science, ie it wasn't a miracle, of course there wouldn't be any issue with teaching it as it has no relevance whatsoever to any religion or religious doctrine. IOW that is very different from what you originally stated.

Confirmation of a miracle story that doesn't include confirmation of the miracle? Then WHAT was your original point?

Its a confirmation of a miracle story that confirms the event, but not necessarily the miraculousness of it. Go back to DonaldM's post: he says in response to me

It isn't at all clear what this means. The statement seems to suggest that if ID reached some undefined level of demonstrated merit (and it isn't at all clear what is meant by "˜merit' or how it is to be demonstrated), then whatever entanglements it might create with respect to church and state could be overlooked. Or perhaps it means, that as long as a science has some definite usefulness, then who cares about the implications for church and state issues.

Does that help?

You said say archaeologists did find unequivocal, unambiguous evidence that confirmed for every single scientist, famous and important religious miracle story X.

Right: the miracle story is confirmed. That the events that were called miraculous (the story) took place as described.

Religious and miracle- What was the miracle of the Flood? That it happened? That Noah survived? Are you saying it would be OK to teach John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" in a science classroom?

Well, in the Bible, the flood and the survival of the Ark is ascribed to the hand of G-d, so those are the miracles I'm alluding to. I don't recall discussing Woodmorappe's book at all. All I am saying is that what I describe could be taught in science class, if it were found.

Would it only confirm a religious story if the Torah were treated as religious books as opposed to historical documentation?

Either way you treat Torah, it is still a religious story. If such things as I describe were found, then those would be scientific facts. You couldn't teach them as religion, but as science.

Did finding Troy confirm the accounts of "The Illiad"?

I don't know. It didn't confirm any of the stories about Apolo and Minerva in it. It confirmed the existence of troy. Finding awhat i describe would confirm a global flood and a boat based faunal rescue. It wouldn't confiorm the hand of G-d.

The bottom line is your point is about as clear as mud. That others aren't responding to you should indicate that perhaps it doesn't work OK .

Maybe. If anyone else complains, that will confirm your story.

I do see the point. Although I would argue that the definition of "human" is nearly axiomatic, in real terms, whereas the definition of "intelligence" is the subject of much ongoing research. It is much easier to separate objects into the classes of "human" and "non-human", than it is to separate them into "intelligent" and "non-intelligent".

I'm not sure it's that easy to define "˜human' "“ witness the abortion debate. But that's a side-issue. More to the point is where you say, "Were I an IDist, my first priority would be to say "this is what ID is", so as not to suffer from the faults of near-ID or psuedo-ID propositions. I can tell you, from the outside looking in, it's difficult to decide who is doing ID, and who is not." It's a very good point. I would just point out that to say "this is what ID is" may take more than a few sentences. As we shall see.

Confirmation of a miracle story that doesn't include confirmation of the miracle? Then WHAT was your original point?

You said say archaeologists did find unequivocal, unambiguous evidence that confirmed for every single scientist, famous and important religious miracle story X.

Religious and miracle- What was the miracle of the Flood? That it happened? That Noah survived? Are you saying it would be OK to teach John Woodmorappe's "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" in a science classroom?

Would it only confirm a religious story if the Torah were treated as religious books as opposed to historical documentation?

Did finding Troy confirm the accounts of "The Illiad"

The bottom line is your point is about as clear as mud. That others aren't responding to you should indicate that perhaps it doesn't work OK .

OK: say they found a great big boat on top of Mount Ararat, and recovered DNA from associated remains with unerquivocal signtures of kangaroo, cassowaries, marmoset, lion, bear etc origin. Say they were able to carbon date the boat, and knowing the date, stated looking at sediments in (say) lake baikal, and found an anomaly that matched the same date. Ditto for ice cores in Greenland. Then they found anomalous deep sea sediments that matched and so on. Again, you could teach this as a spectacular example of how people recorded floods in the past, and compare it to other ancient flood records. Apply the same test.

The example s not really all that different: the flood might eventually be explained non-miraculously, just as the eclipse might be. I usedthe eclipse because its a nice example of how an apparent miracle can be explained, but it doesn't really matter: the flood is good too.

You seem I to imply that I said a miracle IS found to indeed be a miracle. No, what I saud is that the miracle story is confirmed. In the example I used, the religious miracle story is the darkening of the sun, and astronomers confirmed it. That is, it is an established historical event (the miracle stotry) as opposed to it is an established miracle (the supernatural event). It is not against the law to teach established historical events, even if they co-incide with religious ideas.

Does that make sense now?

Now, you vaguely accuse me (yet again) of "antics" and my stuff "working" elsewhere. Which antics are you referring to, and what do you mean 'work". I'm having perfectly civil interactions with others here. Seems to "work" OK.

then switches to:
Say someone found unambiguous evidence of (oh, I don't know) a solar eclipse in the Mid East at aboutrthe date of Jesus' crucifixion.

to which he tries to justify with:
The darkening of the sun and the blood red moon, the rumbling and the ripping of the veil in the Temple are all coincident with the crucfxion, and for a long time were held to be portents of the Divine: miraculous.

How does that correspond to what yopu originally posted? What "miracle" was confirmed? That fact that some people of the time thought something was "miraculous" does not make it a confirmed miracle.

Ya see if a miracle was found to be indeed a miracle, as you original states, and it was indeed full of religious connections, as your original states, then it would be against the law in the USA to teach it in a science classroom.

However if an alleged miracle was discovered not to be a miracle at all and therefore didn't have any religious connections, that even should be allowed to be depicted in terms of the discovery. But that is a far cry, light years, from what you originally posted.

BTW your posting and antics may work at NAiG but they won't fly here.

Have a nice day.

Actually it is very clear to me that it isn't.

On what grounds is it unclear to you?

Why would you do something like that?

Like what?

What religious miracle was confirmed by the solar eclipse? Or is the coincidence of the solar eclipse and the crusifiction supposed to be some sort of confirmed religious miracle?

The darkening of the sun and the blood red moon, the rumbling and the ripping of the veil in the Temple are all coincident with the crucfxion, and for a long time were held to be portents of the Divine: miraculous.

I'm not sure what your confusion is. Surely you don't mean to say that things that were once held to be miraculous are always found, on investigation to be miraculous?

It is not clear to me that what you just presented is representative of what you originally stated.

Actually it is very clear to me that it isn't. Why would you do something like that?

What religious miracle was confirmed by the solar eclipse? Or is the coincidence of the solar eclipse and the crusifiction supposed to be some sort of confirmed religious miracle? Either way you have some splainin' to do.