Evolution is being taught at the exclusion of any other alternative while other science is ignored.

As I stated earlier my only reason to engage the debate on the topic was to point out that science is being used as a tool to cleanse the American society from Christianity. My basis was that science was being improperly applied inasmuch it was professing evolution as scientific fact while disregarding other scientific fact of viability of a fetus in the same lawful structure. To spell it out clearly Deist and secular portion of society through bias of judicial were using science like a whore.

The probable cause for murder is spelled out in law. Based on scientific fact abortion of a living potential mature human being is murder based on probable cause as judged by a jury in our society under common law. There is no law, be it that of evolution or separation of church and state that allows a woman, doctor or man to choose to kill a human being without a fair trial under our constitution that protects all citizens rights. The only exception is a law created by a select number of citizens that can be counted on one hand’s fingers that says science is wrong and a woman has the right to choose to kill other citizens in violation of scientific fact.

It is my opinion that the authority that denounces science as Probable Cause for murder in abortion cannot then denounce the refusal of teaching science or the teaching other methods without contradicting itself.

I think that why it matters, even in regards to this topic, is that those pushing Intelligent Design or Creationism, are pushing to have them included in science classes. Their argument is not that this is a nice philosophical argument, but that Intelligent Design is just as valid a theory on the creation and evolution of the universe as is the big bang, or whatever newer, better theory Stephen Hawking has developed in the last fifteen minutes.

Now, I agree with you that it is a great question for a philosophy class, but really, there is absolutely nothing in Intelligent Design that can be shown to be verifiable through repeated experiments, or new discoveries of evolved animal and plant life, such as can be found in pure science. Admittedly, a lot in this area of science is speculation, but speculation derived from observable, testable, and repeatable experimentation. Nothing in Creationism or Intelligent Design theories I've seen even come close.

So, as to the questions:
Intelligent design should be taught in the classroom, but not the science classroom

I don't see that it would be legal in a science class, as there is nothing scientific about it, but rather philosophic.

Likewise, evolution should be taught in the science classes, or as a comparison to creation in philospoghy, but not in for instance, a comparative religions class, as it is not a religion.


Edited because I can't type

Do you believe intelligent design should be taught in the classroom?

Yes, along with creationism and evolution or any other method the tax payer chooses.

If so why and do you also believe that it is legal?

Because the constitution does not define what may or may not be taught in public schools. Only judicial have selectively chosen sides on selected issues causing the government to become involved in a non government issue. The government has no basis to dictate science or lack thereof. If the government elects to rule in favor of science then to have creditability it must follow all aspects of science as it applies to all laws.

Do you believe that evolution should be taught in the classroom?

The choice of what should be taught in class should be entirely up to the citizens of the state who fund the public school.

I agree in general with Ol Sarge here about what should be taught, with the caveat that ID and creationism should not be taught as science, but rather as worldviews that compete with actual science. Kids need to be informed about the facts and the context of the evolution/ID/creationism debate, and the best way to do that is to address these issues explicitly.

However Ol Sarge, I don't understand what you mean about government following "all aspects of science". Most government organizations and congressional commitees consult with scientists (as opposed to shamans or astrologers) when scientific facts can inform their decisions.

Also, how do you figure that the government has no basis to dictate science or the lack thereof? Are you suggesting that public school science curriculum directors should not base their teachings on prevailing scientific opinion, but rather upon whatever at least 51% of the electorate thinks is scientifically accurate? From what I understand this is exactly what the original meaning of "politically correct" was.

The only things being excluded in a science class are things which are not science. The only things being excluded in an english class are things which are not english. It's a pretty simple calculation really.

...elided non-topical law=science stuff...

Yes, i do because it is a theory, just like any other theory. If you are going to teach one, it is only proper to teach the other and let people decide what they want to believe. Nobody has to have this info forced down their throats. Just present them with an alternative...what is wrong with that?

Personally i think that Evolution is a good theory. But unfortunately, it cannot be proven on the macro sense. Of course we can observe evolution on the micro sense through study of biology and such...but since the theory is relatively new, studying it on the macro will take more time for any hard evidence to be displayed. I believe in evolution and i believe in intelligent design. And i am happy with it.

The whole seperation of church and state thing is getting blown out of proportion in this case (as is usual in most cases). Saying that it is possible some sort of intelligence began everything is not government recognition of religion.

All theories are created equal, huh? So why not a theory that says that humans were created as a source of protein for the alien "grays"? Or one that says that the moon is made of green cheese? Perhaps the Flat Earth Society can have it's say in how our science books are written. All these things have as much supporting evidence as ID. The fact of the matter is, ID says "humans were made by something. Why? Because look at them, they just had to be. Why? Because they were." That is not science.

You an't prove ID any more than you can prove evolution on the macro scale at this point in time. I mean if we came from the "primordial soup"...where did the matter come from? If the big bang is correct...where did all the energy come from to create it?

Theories are theories. Some have more value than others. ID is a theory that tries to fill in the wholes of other theories. Why should we decide what is correct without any factual evidence? Let the people decide what they want to believe...dont tell them.

Yes you can. Intelligent design has zero evidence to support it and inherently never will. Saying "The universe is so perfect intelligence must be present in creating it" is only an opinion. The universe being perfect is only one person's opinion. No amount of evidence can prove that. I don't see how you teach opinion in science class. Evolution on the other hand does have evidence to support it, the fossil record. Millions of years ago there were certain animals. Thousands of years ago there were other animals. Evolution is the only theory that fills that gap.

E=MC2. If you have mass you have energy, where did the mass come from? Where did God come from? Both unanswerable questions. Both have nothing to do with science.

Curmudgeon and I knew a man who was adamantly atheistic and couldn't understand how anyone with intelligence could seriously believe in a God. The last conversation I had with him (he died shortly afterward from cancer) was with a minister in the Unitarian Universalist church we were attending at the time. He was arguing with the minister (a "Theist") that scientists had "proven" that everything came from a hydrogen atom, not God. At the time, I wondered where this hydrogen atom came from...and so on and so forth.

If the parents in a community believe in the importance of teaching that there was a presence or intelligence of some sort to get the existence ball rolling, then shouldn't the schools teach it at least as a concept somewhere in their studies?

At the same time, evolution could well be the way this intelligence decided to make creation a continuous process--who can say? The fact is, I don't think that the concept of humankind descending from a long line of primates is particularly a satisfying one, and with the strides being made in DNA research, it seems almost plausible that a God could fashion a human being from someone else's rib! But that explanation remains too simplistic as well.

It seems to me that it is important to respect the people on the other side (whichever one that happens to be), and to teach our children to be as open-minded as possible while we ourselves work on open-mindedness, too.

What's it really going to hurt to teach intelligent design as a concept?

A good point, PE, but I think the question may center around where it's taught. Evolution as a scientific theory (and yes, theory only) is most appropriately taught in a science class where a discussion of exactly what constitutes a scientific theory can be held. The concept of creation (which I guess has been re-named to Intelligent Design) is less appropriate in a science class and perhaps more appropriate in a philosophy class.

In my experience I found this subject best handled by my Methodist minister who taught Sunday School. His explanation was that the two weren't mutually exclusive at all. Indeed if anything, evolution was a glorification of God because it explained creation as a chain of events rather than a single one. His answer was that creationism was the who and evolution was the how. As a scientist who believes in God, that answer seems to me to be perfectly consistant with my faith and my scientific background.

Perhaps the main issue here is being missed entirely. The question which Intelligent Design tries to answer is "How did we get here?" The question which the theory of evolution attempts to answer is "How did we get here?" These sound like the same question, but in fact the meanings differ.

I'm in Korea. How did I get here? The easy answer is "by plane." The difficult answer requires an explanation of how everything in the universe conspired to create me and to deliver me many years later to Korea. Evolutionary theory answers the simple question -- how did man come to exist given that there were, apparently, no men 10,000,000 years ago. Evolution seems a good answer, supported by evidence of various kinds.

But evolution does not, I think, explain how life happened to begin on Earth, or how Earth happened to circle the Sun, or how the Sun came to be. Intelligent Design postulates an answer. Yes, probably we did evolve. But why? And why did life come to exist? And what caused the universe? We don't know.

Although science has come to be used for answering the little questions (how does this gizmo interact with that widget), most of us know the English version of Francis Bacon's dictum "Ipsa scientia potestas est" -- knowledge itself is power. Science, in the broadest sense, is knowledge. Philosophy is love of knowledge. Scientists and philosophers have basically the same goal.

Therefore, I would suggest that teaching Intelligent Design -- and the rationale for the theory -- should not be objectionable in any classroom. I teach English Literature, but I see no reason I should not show the pitifully thin evidence (and apparent irrationality) of the Big Bang Theory -- it helps students improve their skills in reasoning. I usually compare it to the pre-Copernican theory of crystal spheres carrying the stars with the Earth as the center of the universe.

If we teach the Big Bang in science classes, and its "singularity" (that is, the unexplainable something that existed before the expansion created time and space), I can see little argument for not teaching the theory that there was an intelligent agent.

Is it legal? That depends on the current situation in the courts, on whether the theory is presented as based on religious doctrine. Probably, because it is a view originally seen as evidence for the existence of a Supreme Being/Prime Mover, it would be illegal in the U.S. If it were taught in "philosophy" classes (which, I think we should recall, are not commonly part of the standard public school curriculum), it would more likely be ruled as teaching religion, even though it might not go so far.

In the meantime, we might consider Harvard Zoology Professor Richard Lewontin's comment: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" ("Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9th 1997, p. 28).

A bit off topic, but evolutionary chemists (who basically look at how chemicals might have come together to form self sustaining molecules that could have then evolved into DNA and proteins) have found that, given the atmospheric conditions of the earth at the time, the energy from the odd bolt of lightning would have been enough to catalyse a reaction where ammonia forms into a primitive amino-acid that could self replicate - and that under those same conditions, these amino acids would then develop into proteins (very simple ones) which form the start of the 'primordial soup'....

Having said that, no-one has been able to recreate the entire process - i.e starting with basic chemicals and ending up with a simple lifeform. But people have been able to recreate most of the steps in the process and show how they would have come about 'naturally'.