This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[Occhidiangela]

Well, since a loop would mean that every effect is a cause and every cause an effect, it doesn't really matter. But, yes, your way is more comprehensible.
Well, clearly, I don't. You can ask hypothetical questions until you're blue in the face, but if they don't end up anywhere, you have to come to a conclusion from no evidence. You should admit that there is no way of deciding amongst the possibilities. Anything else is a hunch, at best.
Yes. And we have no evidence at all for either case. Indeed, it seems likely that such information is perpetually beyond our grasp. All sorts of complete garbage is comprehensible to our puny human brains. Like astrology, dianetics, or voodoo. That doesn't mean the smallest thing in terms of what actually *is*. Drawing any conclusion about ID from an argument about first causes is pure speculation, or, less gently, complete bull.
Emphasize that *all* scientific knowledge is theory, and that we must be open to contrary evidence or superior explanations. That *anything* in science class is taught as capital-T-Truth is "mildly fraudulent". Sure, point out where our evidence is lacking, once students get to a high enough level to understand how that fits in with the broad scope of the discipline. But do not pointlessly malign evolution just because it is theologically unpopular. It should be subjected to no more rigorous standards than any other scientific topic. (Now, what *that* standard might be is a completely different discussion)

What limitations should we explain?

-Jester
[right][snapback]98555[/snapback][/right]

Our puny human brains went from "knowing of" spontaneous generation of frogs from mud to understanding reproduction in frogs. Time is a variable in understanding. In time, we may even understand God. Or we may not. (We is used collectively in this case, to represent the general set of humans with reasonably well functioning brains.)

The positing of a hypothesis I noted above was not the generation of infinite hypothetical questions, but rather a step zero in the investigation of "what is it and how it works." A partial answer is an answer, and often meets the good enough standard. The Final and Complete answer is necessary in . . . what fields? Partial answers make up the bulk of what we (see above for who "we" are) know.

What we know about everything is, for my money, best summarized by Bill Bryson :) in "A Short History of Everything."

Occhi