Intelligent Design Debate

So...should intelligent design be taught at schools?  Yes or No?

I say yes.  I say yes for two very  important reasons. 

1. It is a philosophical question, not a religious question.  Failing to permit students to think about philosophical questions sounds like an incomplete education to me. 
2. We permit the teaching of evolution, which just like intelligent design appears to only get you so far before you slam into the unknown and unknowable.  Favoring one religion (atheism) over any other is inappropriate.

Before anyone tries the old tired phrase regarding the separation of church and state, permit me to remind them that this was a phrase used in a letter to Methodist ministers...it is not a constitutional document.  I have posted on this phrase in the past...don't make me find it and link it!

Frankly we have carried the principal of church/state separation just a tad too far in my opinion.  When students are not permitted to even know that there might be any disagreement over a scientific theory, aren't we behaving just a little bit like a totalitarian state?  "You must not discuss subject matters that the State deems inappropriate!"  snarls the KGB Officer...or the atheist to the school board (same thing eh?).  What are we raising a bunch of little atheistic commies?

We should recognize that the prohibition about 'making no law' was meant to protect religious expression...not banish it.  Sadly we have completely incompatible religious expressions amongst the citizenry.  Were we to try and teach every religious creationism theory along side the atheistic evolutionary theory, students would be taught little else.  ...but is it too much to ask that at least some mention be made of the lack of philosophical certainty of the origin of the universe?

Comments

[Peter]

"Favoring one religion (atheism) over any other is inappropriate."

Atheism is actually not a religion. It proposes no deity, and offers forth no doctrinal teachings on how to live spiritually.

In fact, calling atheism religion is analogous to describing triangles as not having three sides.

Consider the following.

The etymology of atheism can be broken down as follows: "a-theism," where "theism" is the practice of believing in a theistic explanation of things. Theism, is a synonym for belief in deities and so forth.

Atheism therefore, is that which doesn't involve theistic beliefs and understandings about the world.

There are both hard and soft atheists.

Hard atheists believe the proposition that "there is no god", while soft atheists, or agnostics, simply fail to believe in god-explanations. They do not necessarily believe that god(s) don't exist, but are unconvinced that they do exist.

Hope that clears things up... :)

[Peter]

I think intelligent design, or creationism from a variety of different spiritualities and religions SHOULD be taught in schools, but just not as a "science" because it's well, not.

Intelligent design, creationism and other beliefs (technically, they're aren't scientific theories as they lack any empirical evidence) should be introduced in appropriate fields like social studies, humanities, english and so forth.

[Mahatma]

I disagree about your designation of atheism as non-religion. It is a belief, a belief in the lack of a deity. Your definition of religion is way too limited. 'Theism' is only one type of religion...I'm sure you can identify many other belief systems that would qualify as a religion to the practictioner! For example: yoga, crystals, TM, reincarnation, etc... none of which require a supreme being and all of which are definately not atheistic or agnostic.

Atheists really want to be treated differently from everyone else but I'm sorry to say they are no better than any other philosophical belief system.

Incidentially it is exactly the kind of fuzzy definition of religion which has prompted some of the absurd legal holdings regarding religious expression.

[Kevin B.]

I did a quick google and found, just as one random example, the webpage for Iowa Secularists, whose front page mentions both being a tax-exempt non-profit organization and being a "system of belief".

So I must agree with Mahatma: Atheism is really no better than any other philosophical belief system. Therefore, when the government removes words or artifacts that align with one belief system at the behest of proponents of another belief system, whose absence happens to align with that other belief system, I find it hard to explain how that is not government establishing or promoting one belief system over the other.

On the other hand, as I posted yesterday, there is nothing 'scientific' to teach regarding Intelligent Design, except to teach evolution and then add "but God did it" at the end, or to be a strict Creationist, teach nothing except "God did it". Neither really contributes greatly to a scientific discipline with laws and principles that should be provable, else the theory be discarded.

I find it appropriate to discuss as a philosophical question; and appropriate to mention in a science discussion that there are multiple viewpoints on the origin of life-- however, I don't see it appropriate to teach as unimpeachable fact, theories which do not have enough proved, physical evidence to fill even one coffin. We have physical evidence of *adaptation* but no conclusive samples or records of transitive forms of life (i.e. one organism which changed into another, with fossil records supporting the transition.)
That being the case, we should be honest about the status of the current preferred working scientific theory and it should not be inappropriate to discuss the differing views on the origin of the variety of species.

After all, didn't atheism originate in the pursuit of "free thought"?

[Carol]

The term ‘intelligent design’ is new to me. I don’t know if that’s because I haven’t been paying enough attention to the topic of religion (entirely possible) or if the term is new. It seems to me that it’s just another name for creationism, so I’ll admit right away that I’m a little negative towards that term because I abhor the practice, which I usually associate with the left, of renaming common terms to make them sound more palatable.

I think both sides are abusing the ‘making no law establishing a religion’ doctrine. The ACLU types have succeeded in making people believe that the clause in the constitution says something about separation of church and state. When that part of the brainwashing is done they take an extreme position on the notion of separation, to the extent of wanting to erase all religious symbols from anything remotely related to the government without regard to public support or historical context.

Frankly, I think the ACLU types do themselves no favor by pushing this fight. It should be obvious to them by now that the harder they push, the harder people will push back. In fact, if the ACLU hadn’t been so aggressively trying to wrestle religion out of the public forum, there might not be a proposal today to bring the theory of ‘intelligent design’ into the classroom, and we wouldn’t be having this debate.

On the other side we have those who try to make the ‘making no law establishing a religion’ doctrine a little too all-encompassing. Yes, it protects religious expression, but it does so primarily by way of not allowing any one religion to become the country’s official religion. In order for everyone to be equally free to express his or her religion, we must also have some freedom FROM religion when it becomes too intrusive.

When you talk about disagreement over scientific theory, are you talking about disagreement over the actual evidentiary findings that support the theory of evolution, or are you talking about dismissing the entire notion of evolution because it conflicts with the chosen beliefs of some people? I don’t think creationists should be able to demand equal time on the basis of the latter. To the best of my knowledge, there are certain provable facts supporting a theory that evolution has taken place. These facts should be taught in school, perhaps with the caveat, as you say, that it only takes us so far. At this point I agree with Kevin B. that the theory of evolution does not necessarily preclude divine involvement, but since we lack any such evidence, I don’t think such discussion belongs in a science class.

We need to be careful about how we characterize people in this debate. It’s a little unfair to lump all atheists together with the activist/ACLU types who take the fight to an extreme, just as it is unfair for those on the other side to label all people of religion as ‘fanatics.’ There are plenty of atheists and agnostics, myself included, who are deeply respectful of peoples’ religious beliefs and who willingly acknowledge that such beliefs are an important part of this country’s history. If atheism is a religion (don’t know if I agree with that premise, but I’ll give it to you for now), then you need to be equally respectful.

[Mahatma]

Carol:

And there's the rub...near as I can tell no one is suggesting that evolution not be taught in schools, I believe the Scopes trial handily addressed that freedom...no the only parties wishing to remove freedom of speech are on the other side of this debate.

Is it state sponsorship of religion to insist that ONLY 'atheistic beliefs' be taught in school? How could it not be?

Notice that I did not say science...I defy any expert to prove that genetic mutation (required for evolutionary theory) can be determined from the body of evidence currently available. To assert that DNA changes over time is not only NOT scientifically proven, it contradicts what we think we know about DNA today.

All intelligent design asserts is that at some point it seems extremely improbable that everything we see arounds us occurred entirely by chance. It is also NOT science but then neither is the theory of evolution. Both evolutionary theory and intelligent design have an identical limitation...neither can be proven and both breakdown to articles of faith.

If some reader knows better than I do have at me here, but be prepared to defend yourself from a detailed and rather sarcastic response.

You probably noticed that I am agnostic, when I'm not hindu and methodist (that's right quite confused!); so my belief systems are not entirely western. I was raised with an open mind...I can defend what I believe in but those beliefs are no better than any other religion in responding to origin of life questions. For anyone to claim that their belief system completely answers those questions requires an awful lot of hubris.

Mahatma

[Kevin B.]

In studies thus far, genetic mutation ALWAYS damages (removes information from) DNA, it NEVER adds additional information.

Genetic manipulation on certain species of flies which have short lifespans (and therefore extremely rapid turnover of generations to study genetic changes over multiple hundred generations) have shown that generational lines with extreme genetic mutations quickly go sterile, ending that line. Lines with more moderate mutations revert back to the original form after only a handful of generations.

It's almost as if they were created to "multiply after their own kind"...

[Mahatma]

Gracious Kevin...I'm not the only one with a sarcastic bent!

[Carol]

I don’t know what you mean when you say, “And there's the rub...” Nor am I familiar with the Scopes trial.

The theory of evolution is not a religion of atheists. Atheists are defined as those who do not believe in a deity. They are not defined as, “Those who believe in evolution.” Now it’s likely that most atheists do believe in evolution since it happens to be the prevalent alternative explanation, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other theories out there. There may be missing links in the evolution theory, but we should be able to discuss those facts that we do know.

I wish you hadn’t played the ‘freedom of speech’ card. This issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There are a lot of things that don’t get discussed in school for a variety of reasons. Lack of scientific evidence coupled with the seemingly infinite variety of religious teachings seem like good enough reasons to leave those lessons up to parents. As I remarked on Kevin’s blog, it may be an okay topic for a philosophy class, but I’m hesitant to even go that route since I see a big fight coming over how the subject is approached.

[Mahatma]

Carol:

The Scopes trial was the famous case where the science teacher John 'Scopes' was tried and acquitted for teaching evolution in a public school. I am astounded that you are unfamiliar with it since you are so well informed about most subjects. The fabulous attorney/orator William Jennings Bryant fought on behalf of 'Creationists' (State of Tennessee) and was shellacked by Clarence Darrow who was defending John Scopes. H.G. Wells was actually considering acting for the defense.

Here is a link:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm

My 'And there's the rub' reference was in regard to your paragraph pointing out that the harder the ACLU pushes the harder they get pushed back...the ACLU is pushing by trying to silence critics or alternative views of evolutionary theory...it is hardly pushing back to want only to present additional information. I would consider attempting to prevent the teaching of the theory of evolution to be 'pushing back'.

As to whether evolution is a 'religion' I'm sure I can't say...but if creationism or even intelligent design qualify as a religious belief (and they must or we would not be having this debate), I don't see how anyone could successfully argue that evolution was not a 'religious belief' for atheists. As you point out not all atheists believe in evolution, of course not all *insert a religion here* believe in intelligent design or creationism either.

I acknowledge freely the lack of scientific evidence to support intelligent design theory; however it is the exact same lack of evidence behind evolutionary theory. Why is one theory 'science' while the other mere supersticious nonsense if they both have identical informational flaws? Only modern secular prejudice could explain the disparate treatment of the two theories. Basically it is a mirror of an identical prejudice which existed during the Scopes trial.

That means that in all of this time we haven't 'evolved' a bit. :)

Mahatma

[Carol]

Since I’m a poor student of science I’ll have to let the following article do my arguing for me:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

I’d be curious to know why you believe that the findings he outlines do not amount to scientific evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

This article probably makes the most relevant point to this discussion: that the theory of evolution is not intended to be an explanation for the origins of the earth. Therefore, its inclusion as a subject of teaching in the classroom is not a contradiction to intelligent design, but a separate issue altogether.

[Mahatma]

Carol:

This web site is not science:

"All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. 'These facts' make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species. (emphasis added)"

'These facts'...what facts?

Science does not guess...it proves. The web site that you linked to was a very unscientific attempt to argue in favor of evolutionary theory. Also notice that it appears to spend a hell of lot of time talking about the origin of the universe and the origin of life. That is because it is not a separate issue.

In order for evolutionary theory to have any veracity at all, it must explain what intelligent design must explain. Where did the universe and life come from?

If I can use the non-scientific argument postulated above for just a moment...

It would be an astonishing proposition for a real scientist to assert that mere logic is a fact. Especially when that logical conclusion has been tested and found invalid by REAL science. You see genetics IS a science...a hard science that can be tested. Evolution is not a science because it can not be either tested or proven...it is merely a theory with tons of untestable holes and not a whole lot of evidence.

Sure fossil evidence shows animal remains but leaping from that evidence to genetic mutation as the reason for the biological change is patently NOT proveable. Notice that the web site referes to this as a 'fact' when it clearly is not factual at all...it is mere reasoning; or worse supposition and opinion based upon rather weak evidence.

I'm hardly a bible thumping traditional creationist but I have to call foul on the nonsense which passes as science today. No one should refer to evolution (or global warming) as more than an opinion which has some rather troubling factual issues. Until someone can demonstrate that genetic mutation of the DNA can actual produce reproduceable life forms evolution is a disproven theory. You might as well worship trees, cows or little lizards.

Strangely the theory of evolution (and global warming) is treated differently from every other scientific theory I'm familiar with. Since a central requirement for the theory to be valid is that genetic mutations occurred which over time created the various species up to and including human beings, a repeatable scientific test which has proven that genetic mutations produce off-spring which are sterile would appear to disprove the theory. Certainly no other scientific theory has survived this type of fatal flaw.

Things that make you go hmmm...

[Kevin B.]

I've been meaning to take the time to parse through this article and debate the points, but Mahatma is more astute than I and his explanation is more to the point than mine would have been. My approach would have been to show how most of the arguments made on the site could equally be used to support an intelligent design theory-- Which actually supports Mahatma's point: this page doesn't establish any real facts, it just attempts to buttress an opinion on a currently unprovable theory.

[Carol]

Well, perhaps I’m a glutton for punishment, but yes I’m back for more. Although, I’m not sure that the kind of punishment I’m talking about is the kind that you intended.

My big disagreement with you has less to do with whether the theory of evolution is right or wrong and more to do with your questionable methods of disputing it. Let’s look at your points, one by one.

“This web site is not science:”

WHY is it not science? To merely declare that something is “not science” is about as meaningful as sticking out your tongue.

In addition to being defined as, “Knowledge…obtained and tested through scientific method,” science is also, “knowledge attained through study or practice.” The documentation of plant species, for instance, is considered science even though there is nothing that necessarily has to be proven or tested. It is merely observation and collection of data, presumably using some standard scientific methodology.

The article I linked to mentioned four major categories of scientific evidence in support of evolution. Which of these, specifically, do you disagree with, and why? Is the study and collection of fossil records not science? Is the study of the chemical and anatomical make-up of life forms not science? Does the documented geographic distribution of related species tell us nothing, scientifically, about those species? Are the recorded changes in living organisms over generations not science? If none of these are science it certainly will come as news to the scientific community.

"All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes. 'These facts' make it difficult to accept a theory of special and independent creation of different species. (emphasis added)"
"These facts'...what facts?”

Here were the facts he was referring to (which you had to have read to get to the part you quoted):
- “Living things on earth are fundamentally similar in the way that their basic anatomical structures develop and in their chemical compositions.”
- “…they all begin as single cells that reproduce themselves by similar division processes.”
- “All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements.”
- All plants and animals receive their specific characteristics from their parents by inheriting particular combinations of genes.”
- “All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids.”
- “…the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things.”
- “Many groups of species share the same types of body structures...”

That’s seven facts leading up to the paragraph you quoted. Did you dismiss them as facts because you dispute them, or is your failure to see them symptomatic of something else?

“Science does not guess...it proves.”
I think it does both. Science, as we know it, is probably based more on unproven theories than either you or I realize. Consider that at some point the theory that the world was round was just someone’s theory – a guess. It probably became an accepted theory, based upon mounting evidence, before it was ultimately ‘proven’ by passing certain scientific tests.

“The web site that you linked to was a very unscientific attempt to argue in favor of evolutionary theory.”
Again, please explain specifically why you believe it was ‘unscientific.’

“Also notice that it appears to spend a hell of lot of time talking about the origin of the universe and the origin of life. That is because it is not a separate issue.”

I found precisely one paragraph dealing with the origin of life issue, and that is the paragraph in which he states, “Many, if not most, biological scientists accept that primordial life on earth began as a result of chance natural occurrences… However, it is not necessary to believe in that view in order to accept that living creatures evolved by natural means after the origin of life.” If you found it anywhere else, please tell me where.

“In order for evolutionary theory to have any veracity at all, it must explain what intelligent design must explain. Where did the universe and life come from?”

Why must it explain where the universe came from? All evolutionary theory has to prove is that life has ‘evolved,’ hence the name ‘evolutionary theory’ and not ‘where the universe came from theory.’

“If I can use the non-scientific argument postulated above for just a moment...
It would be an astonishing proposition for a real scientist to assert that mere logic is a fact.”

Mere logic may not form the basis of fact but it certainly can lead to general acceptance of a theory. If I told you that I theorized that there was a duck in my house because:

-I can hear quacking
-There are webbed footprints on the floor
-There are duck feathers strewn about
-Someone made a ducks nest in the tub

Would you find my theory acceptable even though I hadn’t actually seen the ‘fact’ of the duck just yet? Would it make more sense for me to accept the theory that there is a duck in my house or to deny that there is a duck in my house because I haven’t seen it yet?

“Until someone can demonstrate that genetic mutation of the DNA can actual produce reproduceable life forms evolution is a disproven theory.”

If the scientific community, in general, agrees with you that the theory of evolution has been disproven, they certainly are keeping quiet about it. Is there general agreement among scientists that this particular test, and the way in which it was performed, is the true test of evolutionary theory? Is it possible that no one has yet been able to create conditions in a laboratory that perfectly replicate the process of evolution that takes place over thousands, millions or billions of years? If you want to say that evolution is not proven, fine, but it is a huge leap to declare that it has been ‘disproven’.

Do you think that throughout history there may have been times when people were wrong about their techniques for testing theories, even when the theory ultimately turned out to be correct? Suppose that the fellow who first theorized the world to be round had come up with a test to prove his theory. But suppose that, unbeknownst to him there was some flaw in the test; consequently the test failed to prove that the world was round. Does that mean that his theory (that the world is round) was ‘disproven?’ Obviously not, since we know that the world is indeed round. We can simply say that that particular test failed to prove the theory.

What I was trying to understand by referencing this article was how you support your bold contention that there is a lack of scientific evidence for the theory of evolution. After this post, I find that I am no closer to understanding your position, since you dismiss every point based upon what seems to me to be a very narrow-minded and self-serving definition of science.

[Mahatma]

Sorry Carol...you will convince no one with this type of argument. We can and did read the web site, it offers no proof and too often presents the writers opinion for fact; as in this excerpted quote:

"All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes."

That is not only NOT science, in fact it could not have been written by a scientist.

The phrase 'most logically accounted for by assuming' is both such a weak lead in and such a poor qualifier that you either have to already agree with the writer or not be actually paying any attention to what he/she is writing to agree with anything that follows it.

First off, if you want to believe that most of science is theory which hasn't been proven, we have nothing further to debate. I will not debate with someone who believes that science requires no proof. In many ways that is like debating with a religious conservative...if they believe based upon faith and not proof, no argument or evidence will change the belief.

My science education for what it is worth taught me that science assumed nothing...this was called the 'scientific method' and aside from mathematics this method required the most rigorous form of proof possible before any theory could be treated as a fact. The scientific method requires that an experiment must be 'repeatable' and the process for the experiment must be controlled to eliminate potential interferance. Evolution fails as a theory because we have controlled repeatable experiments that disprove a critical requirement for that theory to be viable. An entire branch of science...genetics, causes a catastrophic failure in the theory. Darwin could not have known that he was diligently documenting changes in appearance but not genetics. He knew nothing about DNA. We know better now.

The other irritating fact that evolutionary theory can not resolve, deals with a puzzling fossil record which clearly indicates that many thousands of life forms appear quite suddenly in a fashion which they could not if evolution's mutation/adaptation theory is true.

See the Washington Post article I wrote about above. I am not alone in asking these questions...in fact I'm really just repeating them here.

As to debating the educational benefit of teaching alternatives to evolution, a brief review of curriculums and the awful public education provided in this country today, suggests that we spend far too much time on irrelevant content based disputes when the actual lack of learning appears to be our greatest need. I do not blame the teachers, I blame the parents.

Rather than parents worrying so much about what is taught in our schools, I would like to see some concern about what is LEARNED in our schools.

[Kevin B.]

Carol:

"Is the study and collection of fossil records not science?"

The fossil record does not contain evidence of transitional evolutionary forms (i.e. a chain of fish to footed amphibious fish to fish-like amphibian to formerly amphibious reptile, etc. etc.) Case in point, the coelacanth from the "Devonion" period of the Paleozoic era fossil record (estimated at more than 400 million years ago) with it's stubby footlike fins, formerly touted as a transitional link between fish and amphibians, and thought to be extinct... until living fish have began to be caught near Madagascar and other places... in similar form (though understandably not identical, taking in account the demonstratable phenomenon of adaptation) as it's Devonian era fissilized ancestors-- and not amphibious. Theory has been revised to infer that some other branch of the family must have been the ones to transition to full amphibia, that rather than evolving, these living specimens must have have "refused to conform to the natural selection put forward by Darwin."
Why is it that all "living fossils" found become touted as exceptions to the rule?

Applying Occam's Razor (the most simple explanation is usually the right one) isn't it logical that if the all living fossils found are not dramatically different from their ancestors of 300 Million Years ago and have evidence of only adaptational changes and not evolutionary changes, that these "exceptions to the rule" actually are the rule, in comparison to the professed "rule" which do not have fossil records in transitional forms to support it?

That the page contains a cute little picture of a pile of fossils that starts with small ancient creatures and the bottom and tops it out with the skull of a man proves nothing. That there are little squiggly creatures in the fossil record which appear to predate the fossil record of humans does not automatically make man the descendent of the little squiggly creature, anymore than does the last guy on the top of a pile of football players become the descendent of the guy with the ball at the bottom of the pile.

"Is the study of the chemical and anatomical make-up of life forms not science?"

Yes it is, and such studies on fruit flies, for example, have yielded that over 400+ generations, despite excessive genetic manipulation, genetic mutation always leads to the deterioration of DNA, not enhancement. Significantly altered specimins go sterile and die out, less drastically changed lines revert to their original healthy form after 5 or 6 generations. That the chemical "recipe" of life tend to contain all the same ingredients does not automatically lend itself as proof of evolution over a scenario where all life came from the same "kitchen" and the same "Cook".

Does the documented geographic distribution of related species tell us nothing, scientifically, about those species?

It tells us that there is a demonstrated flexibility built into the genetic code to survive transitions and adapt to environmental changes. It has not demonstrated that fish can become rats who become monkeys who become people.

"Are the recorded changes in living organisms over generations not science?"

Recorded changes in living organisms over generations are evidence of intraspecies adaptation, but not necessarily of interspecies evolution (i.e. it's documented that members one species of squirrel, who are geographically seperated into two environments each adapt to that environment, including such changes as fur length, color, thickness, etc.; and eventually become seperate sub-species of the same family, but not that the squirrel turns into a fox.)
Darwin's observations are indeed important and fascinating. But his findings have been taken and stretched further than there is actual hard evidence.

Many of the condescending arguments on this "science" page could be used to argue for ID:

"All living things on earth share the ability to create complex molecules out of carbon and a few other elements. In fact, 99% of the proteins, carbohydrates, fats, and other molecules of living things are made from only 6 of the 92 most common elements. This is not a mere coincidence."

(Not coincidence if they came from the same "Cook".)

"All of the tens of thousands of types of proteins in living things are made of only 20 kinds of amino acids. Despite the great diversity of life on our planet, the simple language of the DNA code is the same for all living things. This is evidence of the fundamental molecular unity of life."

(Again with the same "Cook".)

"Many groups of species share the same types of body structures..."

(So the "Cook" is organized and follows a pattern of things that work...)

"All of these major chemical and anatomical similarities between living things can be most logically accounted for by assuming that they either share a common ancestry or they came into existence as a result of similar natural processes."

(Nevermind that assumptions are not part of the Scientific Method, as mentioned by Mahatma, these similarities could again be seen as evidence of all life coming from the same Designer, using the same pattern and materials.)

Therefore, a statment that there is "abundant evidence" supporting evolutionary theory ignores the fact that the evidence we DO have is not out of harmony with an ID theory and that evolutionary theory relies on leaps of which we DO NOT have evidence.

All we really know is that there are diverse flora and fauna in the fossil record, that there are similarities, chemically and physiologically, within species and between species, and that we have witnessed the ability for adaptation to environment over time. How about just being honest about that which we actually know and that which we are guessing, instead of professing guesses as facts, and outlawing the expression of other guesses which have essentially no more or less of a body of evidence?

It seems that many of the scientific community are dogmatically, emphatically attached to the belief in something for which there is tertiary clues and indications, but no conclusive, visible, direct hard physical evidence. But they persist in professing the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, looking forward until the day that the evidence will be found and shown for all to see, vindicating their beliefs.

Sounds a lot like a religion to me. ;)

[Carol]

It's been fun, gentlemen.

[Matt Hurley]

Kevin, I've been doing battle using this same strategery elsewhere and nobody does it like you, man...

[Kevin B.]

Heh heh... You said "strategery".

(Thx for the compliment, btw.:)

[Kevin Irwin]

Just a quick blurb or two...

Atheism is the outright denial of the existence of a deity. Agnosticism describes the "don't know" or "don't care" crowds.

ID could be taught in schools, but not as science. I find it difficult to explain ID as science when there is no measurable data involved to confirm or deny it's existence. In order for something to be science (ok maybe this blurb isn't so quick) it must follow the scientific method, no? Subject, hypothesis, data, theory, law. No data, hence no science. ID should be in social studies but should consist of no explanation longer than "The universe is pretty complex, so it may be a product of a more intelligent entity. Or not"

[Matt Hurley]

I have no problems taking the ID debate out of the realm of science. What I would like to see though is that the ID debate is covered SOMEWHERE in a required course in those districts where biology is also a graduation requirement...

[Kevin Irwin]

It's difficult to teach ID without turning it into a creationism survey course. Has anyone outlined the proposed curriculum to teach Intelligent Design?

[Matt Hurley]

I can only assume they have done so in Kansas, but don't hold me to that...I really haven't been following this as closely as I should.

[pauddissods]

http://seojournal.in/spam/ewall-spam-software-company [url=http://seojournal.in/internet-marketing/internet-marketing-company-tennessee][/url]
http://seojournal.in/yahoo/yahoo-farmall-cub-group [url=http://seojournal.in/online-marketing/gammu-development-mobile][/url]
http://seojournal.in/google/speedo-googles-for-youths [url=http://seojournal.in/affiliate-marketing/internet-marketing-company-affiliate-internet-dental][/url]
http://seojournal.in/pay-per-click/google-pay-per-click-1989-error [url=http://seojournal.in/google/spiked-google][/url]