http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...volution_debate



What I find intriguing about "intelligent design" is that it actually argues against the existance of god more than it does evolution.

Evolution argues that life evolve's over time, yet intelligent design must argue that something extremely complex just existed without ever evolving, but in the same breath argue's that something complex must have been created by an unspecified power effectively caving in by it's own arguement.

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

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

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

I would also like to hear any thoughts on intelligent design and evolution.

The fact that this happened in Pennsylvania doesn't surprised me, though I would have expected it to happen in Mississippi, or Alabama, or another one of those "bastions of intelligence" first.

Saying that God created the universe, or an unspecified higher power, or a giant stapler named Bob, it's all the same: creationism without any scientific basis for it. ID looks for evidence with the conclusion firmly in place, its proponents twisting the facts to suit their cultist agenda. Teaching alternatives to evolution is fine, the problem is nobody can come up with anything that is remotely scientific, and makes any sort of logical sense. If it takes faith to accept a scientific theory, it is not science, it is religion.

Another thing I find quite ironic is that evolution, while having a mountain of evidence to support it, is still referred to as a theory by its supporters. Meanwhile creationism, with ZERO scientific support is "100% fact".

Should it be taught in the classroom? Hmm.... .... NO! No more than evolution should be taught in church.

Why shouldn't evolution be taught in church?

Given that you are arguing that ID is wrong, or at least unsupported by evidence, then perhaps rather than schools teaching creationism, we should have churches teaching evolution (it isn't like evolution precludes God!)

After all, why teach people something that is untrue at all? They'll only go and use it as the basis for spurious debating stances......

I had a biology professor say it this way "we call it the "theory of evolution" instead of the "law of evolution" because we are not quite as , um, sure of ourselves as say, Sir Issac Newton, to say "this is the law of gravity"- when, though, all in all, the law holds true, there are certain times in the universe when certain parts of the mathematics are not constant- Einstien showed us that- and perhaps, we will be shown again that Einstien was not perfect either- but that does not mean we need to stop teaching the theory of Relativity either- you know, it is just a theory, that Relativity, perhaps we need to put a disclaimer on that too? LOL

My understanding about the idea of intelligent design is that, unlike creationism, it's a way to relate observed facts to the existence of a creator.

The thinking goes "Gosh. Isn't the world complicated? Surely something this complicated and elegant must have been designed by someone, and couldn't just have come about by accident?"

Often the eyeball is held up as an example of intelligent design - it has evolved independently in higher molluscs (the cephalopods) and most vertebrates, ending up with almost exactly the same structure - a clear, tough front; an adjustable lens with some sort of light-limiting iris; and a light-sensitive membrane at the back composed of a mosaic of light-senstive cells. One would expect that a single designer would come up with a single design to do the same thing (see) in many different organisms.

Unfortunately for intelligent design, you would also expect a blind, non-sentient molecular process to stumble across an idea that works and then stick with it, rather than reinvent it, at least within a single line of descent. So even if ID held true, it doesn't necessarily mean there has to be a creator.

And while eyeballs might be a good example, locomotion isn't. Think of the different ways animals walk or run - birds on two legs; insects six; crustaceans ten; molluscs anything from one (snails, bivalves) to twenty-plus legs (some squid); arachnids eight; mammals & reptiles four (except when it's two). Some can't walk backwards, some have to go sideways, and elephants have four knees. Any designer who wasn't randomly whimsical (which by most standards would be a sign of lack of applied intelligence) wouldn't have bother coming up with so many different ways to do the same thing.

So, as a theory, intelligent design doesn't really hold up at all.

Having said that, there is no contradiction whatever between intelligent design as a philosophical concept and the empirically-based idea of evolution. One is about intent, and the other is about method. (There isn't even anything in evolution that precludes Christianity, if you accept that some of the Bible is aetiology and not concrete fact, as most of Christianity has managed to do.)

Evolution does more or less hold up. It has flaws and weaknesses, but it explains more things more simply and with more empirical evidence than anything else we know about.

And the stupidest thing about the way the whole idea of evolution (and modern cosmology, chemistry, physics, etc,, for that matter) is perceived in some parts of the public imagination is that it couldn't have been an interesting and entirely posible for an omniscient and omnipotent God to have use evolution to do exactly what He (or She) set out to do.

And that Moses and/or Aaron (who the devout believe first wrote down the creation accounts of Genesis) didn't have God telling them about how he'd "come up with this really neat idea of using a double-helical molecule to transmit genetic information from one generation to the next, because, it introduced a pleasing randomness, and - more than anything else - omnisicience is actually so boring unless there is an element of randomness built in. One knows all of the possible outcomes and their relative likelihoods, but the fun comes from random occasions when something happens to surprise One.
And, by making space-time relative and even flexible, and allowing the effects of gravitation to slow down the rate of Earth's spin so days became measurably longer over time, One thought One had left enough of a hint that in the future, intelligent people would realise that some things you write down or read today are limited by your own personal understanding of it today.
Is it so hard for you to see that in revealing My truth, One can choose which parts One thinks the listener will understand, but even in the act of remembering and writing down, the person to whom the truth is revealed will have errors of memory and understanding? Assuming you write it down straight away, that is. Trying to describe a process you don't yourself understand to a third party and expect them to understand it is as futile as expecting you to see the Truth without attention-catching gimmicks like burning bushes, raining frogs, and the like.
If you really understood you'd know this is the real reason One keeps telling you that One passeth all understanding - you aren't too stupid, you're attention span is too...
... Moses, your eyes are glazing over. Honestly, if One didn't know better, One would say you wouldn't recognise the Truth if it were nailed to a piece of wood in front of you. Maybe someday that will become necessary.
Well, anyway, it became possible to create the whole universe in six sets of activity and still call each one "a day" with a straight face, even though there was a high probability that some overly literal-minded fools would get hung up on one particular English translation written by one man who only had access to translated copies of copies of the originals, about 1600 years after... Moses? MOSES! Are you writing this down? Honestly, boy, your heart is in the right place, but with the likes of you around I wonder what will happen when people become smart enough to work out for themselves how I really did it. You're descendents will probably deny it what's under their noses and go back to your scribblings. Only one 'x' in 'ox', Moses. And 'neighbour' has a 'u' in it. Me, help Me." (If I had written this two thousand years age, there'd be people in Pennsylvania changing school boards to reflect it.)

Certainly, evolution has been used by some people to justify their atheism. Even Darwin himself found that he couldn't believe any more after he'd come up with his big idea. But is it completely beyond the wits of those such as these central PA people that HOW and WHY are two entirely different concepts?

Do you believe intelligent design should be taught in the classroom?
Yes. I believe that ID should be taught in the classroom. But then I believe that Creation, the Native Australian Dreamtime, and every other theory of how things came to be should be taught in the classroom as examples of how pre-scientific peoples tried to explain things they didn't understand.

In astronomy lessons, we teach that people used to believe that the sun went around the Earth, if only to say "but now we know better". I suppose it's a small mercy that the Bible doesn't say "the sun goes around the earth" otherwise we'd have school boards asking that books about the moon landings have the addendum "this book contains ideas that may be part of an international Satanist conspiracy. Not everyone believes that men have walked on the moon."

And I believe that worthwhile science teaching shouldn't be trying to give kids answers beyond the age of about 10, but should be teaching them how to think about phrasing the right questions that will help them evaluate all the different possible explanations to find the one that most fits the available facts. Then all kids will work out for themselves that evolution is the most useful way to think about the living world.

Of course, that will annoy parents who want their kids to be told to believe in certain things, just like they were by their parents, and their parents before them, right back to whichever poor schmuck who's hot meals and sanitation were made conditional on agreeing with the person dishing them out.

If so why and do you also believe that it is legal?
Yes; ID is not a religious concept in itself. As an idea it should be taught, just as an earth-centred universe concept should be taught, to illustrate that in the history of ideas, new and better explanations of observed facts are resisted for many centuries before becoming completely accepted. And it's most often been religion that has put up most resistance.

Do you believe that evolution should be taught in the classroom?
Of course it should. Of all the ideas I've mentioned, it is the one that should be taught in science classrooms, because it's the only one that is science-based.


On a wider issue, I think that the Constitutional separation of Church and State serves America least well in education. The UK has compulsory religious education classes, ostensibly because the established church and the state are two facets of the same thing in the UK. (We also have compulsory hymn-singing and prayers, which is the fastest way to a secular society as any I know. Forcing kids to do anything makes them hate it for ever more.)

But almost universally here, such classes study Religion itself as a whole, comparing and contrasting the different world religions, not just indoctrinating Anglicanism on all and sundry. In part, this is due to the way religion is viewed by the British - just another set of ideas, like politics or sport, and as central or peripheral as any other, depending on the individual.

I can't help feeling that part of that neutrality arises because we force it into the curriculum in schools - it gets put in a box marked "religion" in most heads, and doesn't enter daily life.

Of course, that's just what fundies don't like - religion is supposed to dominate every aspect of daily existence. But by having time set aside for religion, it takes a lot of pressure off other areas to conform. Science can be about science. Literature can be about human writers with photographs or paintings made during their lifetime, some of whom may have written things that conflict with this or that holy book.

You'll get drowned by the naysayers, foremost among them your Sunday school teacher, even if you bring it up as a curiosity.

Do you believe intelligent design should be taught in the classroom?
I'm not sure. After reading Julian's description it alludes to religion, or a monotheistic figure. What else where the Framers referring to when they penned the Architect?

Do you believe that evolution should be taught in the classroom?
Yes. I never understood the hubbub about evolution taught in schools. It was taught as the theory of evolution in high school. Now parents want a warning sticker to... remind students it's a theory.

Evolution never stripped me of my belief in Jesus Christ. Honestly, I think Marjorie Rogers is insulting the intelligence of school age children. As with a lot of things you need to decide what to believe in. Heaven forbid we be tested.

Evolution simultaneously allowed students to explore the origins of the universe and acted as a buffer against religiosity in a tax payer-funded institution. People that want to drive the point home that evolution is a theory are likely the ones that also want to reintroduce prayer during school and pick up the slack for secular parents that don't care to bring their kids to church. In other words, a social construct allowing religious conservatives to circumvent the undeniable finality of Judeo-Christianity that ultimately everyone will have to answer for their own actions (or inaction), regardless of how they were brought up, in the pursuit of soliciting nonbelievers in a way that goes beyond what is expected of their faith.

Disclaimer: I don't want this to turn into a religious debate. I felt I had to address the insecurities and/or motivation of some believers. Please don't turn this into a "all people of faith are mindless zombies" argument.

Let's face it; "intelligent design" is just a code word for "creationism."

Should it be taught in the classroom? Well, it's going to be taught in private Christian schools of the Fundamentalist type, that's for sure. Whether I approve or not is irrelevant. I would be very upset if it were taught as a viable scientific theory in public schools. Because it isn't science. Not even slightly.

America's Debate had to ban all the "creation vs. evolution" debates that cluttered up this place some time ago, so I won't offer any discussion of this point. Suffice to say that in my opinion this is a dead issue, not worthy of debate. You may have a different opinion.

Teach it as part of a Comparative Religion class if you like, but keep it out of the Biology class.

Should evolution be taught in the classroom? Well, private schools can ignore what they don't like, of course. In public schools, a good knowledge of evolution is absolutely vital to having a decent understanding of biology. Having a Biology class which ignores or denies evolution is like having a Chemistry class which ignores or denies the atomic theory. (I despair over the fact that I need to point out that the word "theory" in science does NOT mean "a guess;" it means something that is very well established.) Oh, you could still mix chemicals together and make pretty smoke; but you would have no real understanding of the science.

I also despair over the fact that I need to point out that the well established theory of evolution does not in any way invalidate any religion. It also pains me to be forced to point out that there are many Christian sects which fully accept evolution.

"Intelligent design" is purely a product of the Religious Right. I can offer no stronger condemnation.

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



I don't understand why in a pluralistic, heterogeneous society parents want elements of a particular faith taught in school. If parents are this concerned, can't they teach those elements at home and perhaps at church. Can't they tell their children that they think evolution is a "theory." Having been in public education for 34 years, I can say, without reservation, that parents sometimes push their responsibilities off on the schools.

Other than teaching about religion as it has woven itself into the patterns of cultural history, it should remain within the domain of parents and churches, synagogues, mosques, etc. There are countless myths of creation. Students should study these in historical context along with events such as The Crusades, The Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials.

No, I think designed intelligence should be taught to keep consistent with the idea of God and creation. God created intelligence, but we have no idea what God used to make intelligence. We see evidence of intelligence in creation because intelligence is a part of creation. Whether God has intelligence is unknown, but I bet to create intelligence, God needs something greater -- something we can't understand with intelligence.

That's a consistent take on the notion of God and creation. Let the people pushing for ID chew on getting consistency straight for a while.



Irrelevant. The teaching isn't founded on the basic ideas but on the illusion of intelligence detecting intelligence in a reality that was created by means that we cannot understand. Legal or not, the whole idea of ID isn't right.



Sure, as part of the scientific method. Not understanding science is like not knowing how to read and write.

back in my normal life i am a biology major and so on, and i have spent much time and have much interest in the natural history natural sciences and so on. I bring this up because i have spent so much time on it, from organic evolution to dark matter to think that it will all go away in another dark ages for some kind of religious overtone in the young minds of our culture. I always ask these intelligent design people a question like if we require intelligent design why does not the designer itself, its a paradox and of course it really makes no sense. The whole concept of religion is faith based, it can be anything you can make in fantasy and it will always be that. Religion detracts from freedom in those people that take it so far as to try to make it the staple and way of life of any society that its in, and there are more religions then you can count and of course they all vary in what the cover and everything else. If something like this is let into public school it just makes a way for all kinds of wars per say that people can fight for having control over perception, and in regards to young minds, i think they may already have a difficult enough time trying to decide what is real and what is not.

Things like gravity and evolution are fact, and can be found so via science, the theory behind it changes here and there as we learn more about it via hard science, and this is open to anyone, all you can do with religion is say its this way and that’s it, the concept of faith and why religions change with the culture, like the new testament and so on. There is a fundamental difference between the two, and people whom argue against natural history i always find to no nothing about it, but have a whole lot of emotion to back up there opinion on why there perception of a certain religion is correct over everything else. Intelligent design in itself is a false scheme by the Christian right in itself to sneak back into public education anyways.

I knew when bush got four more years that this was coming, four long years of living in oppression of thought via the federal government, and of course the lack of care for the constitution.

ID in its non-theological form is an interesting critique of evolution. There are a couple components of it which make for good debate:

1. Occam's Razor:

Given the choice between gradual change over millions years producing complicated life like humans versus someone/something coming along and constructing life, which is the simpler explanation?

2. Violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

Specifically, the 2nd law states that you cannot "break even" or rather things go from order to disorder. Intuitively, evolution violates the 2nd law as more complex life evolves over time.

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

Unfortunately, ID cannot be tested, is not predictive, nor is it falsifiable; thus, it should not be taught in science class. However, it could and perhaps should be taught in other venues: philosophy of science or comparative religion.

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

Of course, it is our best ontological explanation of life. It is a viable science with strong predictive power. It can be falsified. It may not be perfect, but then there are no theories in science which are perfect. Evolution is still highly debated by theorists and some do not agree on the importance of basic tenets. This is okay though. Science is not religion.

Nileriver, yep that's a paradox, and that's why intelligence needs to be seen as a part of creation. Everything came from the nothing, or singularity, including time and intelligence. That's why I call it designed intelligence.

God doesn't need design. God has always been and always will be. The creation has a beginning and end, though.

If the theologians, or want-to-bes, were honest with their concepts of God, this would make perfect sense. But no, I do believe there is a very human political goal involved in the ID effort.



lobohage, the simple explanation is that life is built into creation. How this was done is beyond our understanding, so don't even try to figure out how life was built in. It is here, it reproduces, it changes to its environment, and it's on other planets than Earth.

We can study how life comes to be and how it changes over time. However, once the singularity expanded into the universe, life was an inevitable outcome. Very simple. Otherwise, the first paradox comes up.

Where did the someone/something come from?

If one truly believes in God as defined, God has always been and will always be. God created time and intelligence. Nothing created God.

Of course, the simple explanation is that everything in the universe just happened. We don't know why and can't figure it out anyway, so it's unknowable. Why does there have to be a God? That's adding further complexity.

Ah, but there is a God. It's available if wanted, and that too is basic theology. We still get all wrapped up trying to understand something that we can't.

Then there're the emotions that lead to wars and witchhunts. Humans aren't all that intelligent, but we are very much arrogant.



This is a gross misunderstanding of the two meanings of the word "entropy." The physics meaning is completely different than the philosophical meaning. This site explains it well:

Entropy in physics and philosophy

Biology does not contradict physics.

Again, if the arguments against science were honest, there would be no contradictions anywhere, and this noise over evolution would just go away. But we still have politicians with their human agendas of control and manipulation. And again, I'll state that humans just aren't all that intelligent, but arrogant to the extreme.

After all, we've figured out how to destroy our own planet, several times over.

I think all this stuff could be studied in the classroom, except for the welcoming of God into the heart. That's a field assignment and quite a personal thing.

If you dont know, you dont know. This is why i stick to hard science to explain such things, not philosophy. Does the universe have a beginning or an end, the simple answer to that is we dont know, the opposite end of it nothing but theory, be it of a creationist standpoint or other. When we have fact we have something to go with. Its like a worldview, i am able to see clouds as clouds of gas because i have learned that, and to the point, i cannot create something completely alien in terms of thought unto myself, but can only work with what i know, its that biological dynamic of having a memory or what not, sub cortical emotion formation bent to the stimulus or something. To get more onto the point of it all, simply ID is nothing more then an excuse for our current level of ignorance, humans probably thought lightning was magic along with steam engines, and their are cultures out there that are still like that. Think of the issues that surrounded the idea of germs, and or the fact the earth is not flat or the center of the universe, or the dinosaurs walked the earth. I will not use this platform to debate ill conceptions about a great deal that science studies or natural history, i tired of that long ago.

ID is nothing novel, and more to the point it was generated by christians, the hard right kind of christian and now that bush with his pro take over the america with religon is in power, these people have nothing to fear. I dont care about who worships what, but to stick to the constitution public education is federal, its not a private education center, and to add in religion then goes against the constitution, its rather black and white on that one. How exactly are you going to teach it, i mean what are you going to say to the kids, "well we dont know much about much, so it must have been made by something higher" i just dont understand.
I mean what if you tweaked education, so that in the fourth grade you were doing advanced level education, like biochemistry, biophysics or so on. Sure maybe you cant do that, so instead lets do ID i guess, makes no sense to me. People wonder why drug use is rampant

Its always like that, the town i live in has like over hundred foot tall statues worshipping their particular faith or take on it, but its never good enough, so i always have to live in fear of some nazi organization and the plans that have for my life. I mean i was born so i can have some guy carve up my genitals, that does not sound very sane to me, but what have you. It does not end their either, i mean how organized is ID, will it not offend religious people that already blow off science to keep their perception intact, i dont see any point in it save you study the history of its creation, i mean like culture in general it has a phylogeny to it, and of course is just a mafia like front for something else.

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

How can you teach something that has no basis in fact? Why don't we also teach them that we are nothing more than a science experiment is some really huge school lab outside of the universe.

Do you believe that evolution should be taught in the classroom?
There is nothing that has more scientific probability for the reasons of life than Darwins hypothesis. Since this would presumably be taught in a sciene class, how could anyone justify not teaching it?
Keep religion out of schools!!!

Intelligent design can be taught as a science when and if they ever do any actual research and tests that can be reproduced to check results against other attempts--Til then it ranks right along with :

Trepanation. The desire to increase one's conciousness permanently has led some brave people to undergo this procedure where they drill a hole in their head.

Gozor worship. Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the destructor, Volguus Zildrohar and Lord of the Sebouillia. and the always popular How to Avoid being Roasted in the depths of the Slor during the rectification of the Vuldrini.

The Science of the Crystal Vortex of Sedona Arizona and its healing properties.

How to cleanse the bodily humors from an overexposure to the prime elements of life through manipulation of the Ethyrs.

How to Contact those now on the OTHER side.

Vegetarianism and other folk lore

Occam's Razor states that you should not multiply entities unnecessarily. That usually means that the simplest explanation is the best one, but in this case, given that the theory of evolution exists, is it a "multiplication of entities" to say that life evolved through known means of genetic variability and natural selection, or to invent an otherwise unsupported (by evidence) being who created it all?

The trouble with razors is they cut both ways


I was always led to beleive that the Laws of Thermodynamics apply best to closed systems. Aside from experimental containers, the only closed system we can consider is the universe as a whole (the planet receives matter and energy from space; the solar system loses energy in light & heat) and cosmology leads us to believe that entropy is gradually increasing. Also the second law does not disallow temporary downward fluctuations in the level of entropy, and if the closed system we're considering is the whole universe, what are the few billion years during which life of Earth has evolved to it's present state except a temporary blip?

So I don't think that ID forms a very good critique of evolution; indeed, I don't think that they conflict at all, since establishing the existence of a creator, and establishing the method of creation they may or may not have used are two separate questions. As I said in my last post, the best methods of creation we've managed to think of so far without first reference to religious or mythic texts is the Big Bang followed up by the laws of physics and the theory of evolution. These are only in conflict with the idea of intelligent design if we decide that we know how the creator did it (usually based on religious ideas). For example, if you believe that the first few chapters of Genesis are literal truth and not aetiology, then you can say that the concept of ID is incompatible with or critical of evolution.

In other words, I don't think that ID can really exist in the non-theological form you suggest, and I only think it forms a critique or even a conflict with evolutionary theory if we accept a creation myth from theology as truth, and that truth conflicts with evolution.


Agreed

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

Yes.


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

All forms of philosphy should be explained and debated. Even those we don't like.


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

Of course. Evolution is the most sensible method to explain how life is able to exist over millions of years.

The trouble with the idea of 'Intelligent design' is that it pre-supposes an intelligence. If you look at human design, then everything we have created and invented is in some way or other a replication of what the natural world has given us. Everything from the camera to a pair of crutches is merely an extension of our perception of the world.

Or in other words, it is impossible to create something or have an original concept that doesn't already exist.

The only way by which 'intelligent design' can be applied is if we grant it existence as a philosophical construct.

Of course, razors cut both ways. But, for folks who already have a predisposition towards believing in a Creator/Prime Mover, their intuition is against evolution. Furthermore, evolution asks people to consider timescales in the billions of years: something which is well beyond a human frame of reference. ID offers an explanation that confirms their bias. More importantly, ID implies that evolution rejects the Creator/Prime Mover notion. This is how people infer the "atheistic" bias in evolution. In other words, ID has (fallaciously) framed the debate to suggest that beliefs in evolution are incompatible with beliefs in theism.


Yes, these are all good counterpoints to the thermodynamic argument. Entropy increases over time. In other words, things go from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. The Sun's radiation (photons, neutrinos and so on) means that it is losing energy, i.e. there's an energy gradient, i.e. entropy is increasing. Earth happens to intersect with a small percentage of the total energy output of the Sun. Since there is excess energy on the Earth due to the Sun's radiation, work can be done with it. Life on Earth is the embodiment of at least some of the "work".

However, the ID counter-argument to this is the notion of "irreducible complexity". Anyway, you could go here for a more thorough discussion.


I agree that ID does not make a very good critique of evolution, but the arguments are clever and force you to think about the basis of your reasoning -- always a good thing™. However, not all variants of ID require a Creator with a capital "C". ID allows for the notion of panspermia. That is, life on Earth could have been seeded by either aliens or just by chunks of ice with life bearing molecules hitting the Earth.

One of those age old type questions that some of histories greatest philosophers have struggled with. For many it boils down to the simple question of is G-d real?




Yes, I think it should be mentioned as a possibility and as something that many people believe in. I would keep the details, in large part, to the religious institutions (churches/temples/etc.). It should also be noted that many institutes of higher learning have schools dedicated to theology, despite it being the philosophy for which no proof is ever likely to be had.

The hard sciences, of which evolution is only partly so, all started their lives as philosophies.



I think I covered the why above. The 2nd part is trickier, as some very good arguments can be made for both sides of the argument.



Yes. Evolution is real, the only question that remains is to what extent? It is not a natural law like gravity or thermodynamics as it is not repeatable, but there is a great amount of evidence that points to evolution, at least within a species, being very real. IMO, Darwin was a smart guy who made some great observations, but then took it a step too far.

I do not believe that it should be taught, but I believe that it should be allowed to be taught. There is no need to make a mandate for all public schools to teach ID. But if a public school wants to, there should be no reason to ban it.


I believe it should be legal to teach it. Even if one believes in the separation of church and state (which is a whole other area of debate), ID is not a religion. ID does not state the exact nature of god, it could be any god of any religion.


Same thing. If a school wants to teach evolution, it should be allowed to.


Neither are many elements of evolution, yet it is taught as science. How do many biology classes start? With the explanation that life arose from chemicals. Can it be tested? Has it ever been observed? What is the nature of its prediction?

As to ID being taught as science, I am ambivalent about it. I do not see ID by itself as being scientific, but I do see other areas related to ID as scientific. They have a clear hypothesis, predictions, and tests that can be applied to them. But, since this thread is about ID, I will not diverge into those areas.


Though your statement is a paradox, it has no bearing on ID. The point of ID is not in the nature of the supernatural entity, but simply that one should exist. The exact nature of of the diety would belong in either philosophical or religious studies.


I do not get the perception that ID was generated by Christians. Certainly there are many Christians that are ID proponents. But there are also non-Christians that believe in ID. Antony Flew is one such example.

"It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Source


I would agree.

If this is your argument for why evolution is an incomplete theory, then I'd suggest alot more study as to the elements of evolution and in particular as to theories surrounding the origins of life. There is a lively debate going on amongst experts in the field about various aspects of evolution including punctuated equilibrium vs. graduation and biased inheritance vs. truly random mutation. Like many things in science, the debate is by no means "settled", however there are areas of evolution which are agreed upon which the data does demonstrate to be correlated to a high degree. As to your rhetorical question, life arising from chemicals has been tested and shown to occur (of course, life is composed of chemicals...). You can read this page or even go to the wikipedia for more info. However, the issue with ID is not so much testability (though I'm at a loss as to how ID would be tested); it is more falsifiability. If a theory has no mechanism for how it could be proven false, it is not science. So, yes, while it is possible that 20 foot tall aliens with green tentacles and two noses created life on Earth, it is not likely nor is it provable nor is it falsifiable.


I agree that ID should be taught but not as science. It could be taught in comparative religion or philosophy classes. I advocate a class (or set of courses) in the philosophy of science in particular. Also, ID could be taught in segments dealing with futurism and speculative fiction. What ID is not is science.


Hmm... So, ID only works if you don't question who the ID'er is? This, I must say, is a cop out. If you're not allowed to question who the ID'er is, why can't it be anything? Like...um...20 foot tall aliens with green tentacles and two noses or some sort of space rabbit or bits of yarn from old lady Agnes' sleeve? In that case, I propose the ID'er is something called "quantum mechanical principles" which allow these things called "atoms" to interact in such a way to create these things call "molecules" which create certain types of molecules called "RNA" and "DNA" which are the building blocks of "life".


I think this is getting a bit off topic, however I pretty much agree. ID does not require a deity for its position: it needs something to be the "designer". It could be an alien, it could be panspermia or it could be a deity. I think nileriver was getting at that it was those steeped in a Judeo-Christian perspective who developed ID not so much that it's a Christian theory.

I'm not arguing for or against the theory of evolution. I'm simply pointing out that things in both evolution and ID are not testable nor observable.


That certainly can be true. But the premise of ID is that it must've been directed by an outside entity. A purely naturalistic explanation for how atoms randomly evolved into man without a designer is improbable.


Again, I do not believe that to be the case. But, even if it was true, how does it demonstrate that ID should not be taught in schools?

Evolution is both testable and observable. ID is not. ID's basic tenet is that something "designed" all life; if this designer can neither be tested for nor observed, it is not a scientific theory. Note that the most important thing of a scientific theory is falsifiability. ID in particular cannot be falsified. Already, certain notions within evolution have already been falsified and I expect that to continue to be the case. Since evolution derives mostly from abductive and inductive constructs, it is easy to think that it is entirely composed of such things. This again is not the case. I would strongly suggest you read a lot more on evolution before making blanket statements such as you have.


And a designer, like a blue-tongued, three-eyed, hyper-intelligent lemur, is not improbable? The point I was making was not to propose alternative "designers". The point is to show that to cop out on defining who or what the designer is does not a good theory make. This is a problem for ID which cannot be easily sidestepped.


I think we both agree that ID should be taught in schools. What we perhaps disagree on is if it should be taught as a science.

I will admit there is much to evolution that I do not know. But, I have also done some research on this subject. So, there is basis to my statements, but again, my point is not to argue for or against evolution.


Again, I argue that it is not a role of ID to find the nature of the designer. Why should it matter?

Even in the theory of evolution, abiogenesis is usually not a part of the theory. Evolution does not state how the initial life arose. Why then should ID have to identify the exact nature of the designer?


Yes, we agree that it should be allowed to be taught. Also, I have not stated that it should be taught as a science class, but I am not opposed to it.

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

In advanced college level classes, sure. I think it might be an interesting theory to explore. Evolution, however, has much more solid evidence as a scientific theory and ID is not ready to take it's place, if it ever will.

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

Being that it is a possible theory and one backed up by many faiths, as long as it doesn't espouse one faith in particular, I don't see how it could be considered illegal.

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

Yes. It has a solid scientific background and until something comes along that has equally solid footing, I don't think it should be replaced.

I would also like to hear any thoughts on intelligent design and evolution.


I don't quite buy ID just yet. It has yet to cover enough of its bases. I do think it is worthy of research, just not worthy of teaching alongside or instead of evolution.


Quite the opposite, i would call the separation of lifeforms from one type into multiple more complex types constant steps toward disorder. There is much more order in a single-celled organism than there is in a multi-celled one, and I believe that disorder has increased as separate species have continued to evolve.

But, you have been arguing that the two theories have a level of equivalency. This is what I disagree with. Evolution and ID are not equivalent theories; ID is not science. It is why I suggested more study on evolution.


ID's basic tenet is the designer; in order to address the theory, one must address the designer problem. I agree that there are certain aspects of evolution which have yet to be fully tested, and questions regarding origins of life are recognized as important and are being worked on. The important feature of evolution or indeed any theory which qualifies as a scientific theory is that it is testible, predictive and falsifiable. ID has none of those qualities and thus is not science. The theory of evolution is by no means fully fleshed out and there are many points which are still under debate by many experts in the field. This does not mean that evolution does not attempt to answer the origins of life problem -- quite the opposite -- it's just that the origins of life problem has not been answered fully. There have been experiments and some of the experiments have worked and some haven't. Again, the important feature is that there can be experiments and that these experiments can give you an answer: yea or nay. ID cannot provide this, thus it is not science.

One last point: it is unrealistic to think that just because it is a theory in science, it is fully resolved or even "correct". The theory is as correct as the theory can be according to the knowledge of the time. Newtonian mechanics is not the complete answer to how objects interact; you need Einstenian relativity to address part of the problem and quantum mechanics to address other parts. Those theories are not complete either because they do not reconcile with each other very well. This is the nature of science. Over time, we refine our knowledge with better and better data and cleverer and cleverer experimentation to get at how the universe works at both a macro and micro level. Again, the important features for any science is testibility, predicition and falsifiability; otherwise, it's something else.

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

No. It is a MYTH and should not be introduced as possible fact. This same school district wants to teach 3 as an acceptable value for pi, claiming the bible trumps facts. If the religious right wants their children to grow up mis-educated morons, then they should teach them at home.


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

Yes, as we have and continue to evolve.

The sad part about this debate, is the hijacking of Christianity. These religious fanatics have distorted Christianity to the point that I cannot claim to be a Christian. These people diminish the work of God by claiming that he clapped his hands for 6 days and made the world exactly as it is today. They give no credit to the wonderful way God went about his creation, and the evolution involved in it.

The world is NOT 6000 years old, it is billions. Sorry fundamentalists.

[I]"Do NOT trust translators!" -GOD[I]

Have I? Nowhere have I stated that they are equivalent.


I'm not going to go back and forth on this so let us agree that we disagree on this point.


I would concur with this. This is one reason why challenges to evolutionism should be encouraged.

Again the main questions in this thread are:
Do you believe intelligent design should be taught in the classroom?
If so why and do you also believe that it is legal?
Do you believe that evolution should be taught in the classroom?

I think we can safely agree that the answers are: yes, yes, and yes.

Here's why I came to this conclusion:

I inferred that you believed that ID was a scientific theory. If I inferred incorrectly, then I apologize. So, this being the case, I suppose we agree that ID should not be taught as science.


Hmm....okay. However, I will say that evolution attempts to address the origins of life; it just doesn't have the complete answer yet. In this matter I suppose evolution is more generalized.


Indeed, challenges to other scientific theories, like quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and so on, should continue as well. However, the challenges must be based on experimental evidence. They must be testable, predictive and falsifiable. If these challenges cannot meet those criteria, then they are not good science and thus are not viable challenges to those scientific theories. ID is such an example of a non-viable challenge. However, If ID could meet the above criteria, then I'd be all for it as a viable challenge to evolution, but it does not.

If we don't have standards, then any theory could challenge a scientific theory. For example, I could have a theory which states that dogs are really made of alien candy corn which can only be perceived by us as "dogginess". I cannot test for this alien candy corn because it is impossible to test for. The aliens just ensure that the outcomes of our tests will always return results consistent with other types of animals and known biological processes. Yet, I insist that my theory is true and is the "real" composition of dogs. Well, since I cannot test it nor is it falsifiable and the only prediction it makes is that a dog will behave like a dog, then what good is the theory as a theory in science?


Well...yes (but not in a science classroom), yes (but not as religion), yes (and in a science classroom).

From what I have read of intelligent design, it is not a science in and of itself... it is a philosophy that can be applied to science -- one that doesn't ignore the possibility of Divinity in origins science; just as methodological naturalism is a philosophy applied to science. While I agree that methodological naturalism shuts out the Divine in it's approach to science, I believe that in public schools this is the approach that should be taken. Should private schools elect to teach science from the philosophical view of intelligent design rather than methodological naturalism, I say go for it. The same goes for colleges and universities. But public high schools, elementary schools and the like... no.

Anyone ever stop to think that EVOLUTION is Intelligent Design? I mean think about. How would you have done it?

Just a thought.

Actually this idea has been around for quite a while known as theistic evolution, creative evolution or evolutionary creation.



From an Scottish page on the “creative/evolution” spectrum. Many possibilities are listed.

http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/creevspectrum.htm

Why not? It is a theory just as knowable as evolution.


Because, like evolution it is a theory and what law changed theory into law?

Yes, it should be presented as a “possible” explanation of existence.

My thoughts on intelligent design and evolution:

Evolution does not explain instinct in animals e.g. I watched a cow birth a calf today, the cow licked the calf dry, the calf struggled to its feet and went strait for the milk source. The mother cow, a vegetarian, turned in circles until its afterbirth was dislodged and then ate it. One more example. We have a local termite that lays dormant until a rain in conjunction with a full moon causes it to hatch with wings ready to fly and it does fly towards the moon until its wings fall off allowing the wind to distribute it. Likewise, human instinct, reasoning and faith are not explained in evolution.

Philosophy deals with irrefutable truths e.g. “I think therefore I am” proving you are not a mere dream. Using this same irrefutable PROOF you cannot prove I exist and you must depend on FAITH that I exist and that I’m not something “you” dreamed. Science deals with test in redundancy with an element of unknown. Neither evolution or intelligent design are irrefutable, they are equally defendable. In fact I would say in contradiction to your basis on evolution v intelligent design the latter has more merit. Arrangement of molecules in certain climatic design cannot explain life, instinct, reason or faith. Whereby intelligent design would indicate a higher power has created ALL and created it whole or allowed it to evolve.

Again you contradict yourself saying, “What I find intriguing about "intelligent design" is that it actually argues against the existance of god more than it does evolution.” For you seem to be speaking of the Son of God and not the creator. There is no way for science to refute God’s existence, the alleged father of Jesus, for like me, proof of his existence relies on a non-scientific “faith.”

Evolution is a religion in it self and if Christianity isn't taught in school neither should it.

Ah, the equivalence principle. Yes, because you can give two things the same label, they therefore must be equivalent. Newtonian mechanics is also a "theory". Perhaps, that theory is just as viable as say...um...magic. Magic can explain why things behave as they do just as a well as Newton's laws of motion, thus it must be just as viable and should be taught as such.


A "law" in science is not like a "law" in jurisprudence. A "law" in science means it is a very well-justified and widely accepted theory. That's it. There's nothing special about it. All things in science are theories. Sometimes these theories turn out to be in conflict with other theories; sometimes they just don't coexist well. That's the nature of the endeavor. The wikipedia has a good starter entry on the philosophy of science.


Sure. I have a theory too for a "possible" explanation of existence. I call the "Space Beagle" theory. In my theory, there's this giant space beagle that can also be really small. Anyway, the space beagle sniffs the universe into being or is it slobber? The space beagle created all life because...well...that's just what space beagles do. You can't see this space beagle, but you know it's there because you live in space and that's what a space beagle occupies.


I would suggest before making claims about the theory of evolution like this, you study it. These claims about evolution are incorrect.


Some philosophy attempts to make claims about "irrefutable [metaphysical] truths" such as idealism or even Cartesian dualism. But, radical skepticism aside, you will find that most philosophies employ a deflationary truth and/or a correspondence theory of truth. But, go here for more information on the epistemology of truth.


The difference between ID and evolution is that ID is not refutable whereas evolution is. If you cannot test for the "designer", it is by virtue an irrefutable theory. Moreover, ID is not predictive nor is it testable. This is why they are not equivalent theories; this is why ID is not science. Also, you seem to be arguing the classic "thermodynamical inconsistency" tenet of ID. This is a fallacious argument based on an incomplete and disingenuous notion of thermodynamics.

Actually sarge it does. The termites method of spreading itself has been a successful gambit and so the termite has continued to exist. As for the cow the fact it will do what is necessary to protect and nurture its young is a positive habit that encourages the chances of it survival where by not doing anything to nurture ones young would probably lead to the extinction of a species.


You cannot test for the creator. one can test the theories of evolution. Whether we understand it enough is irrelevent. With each succession of theories we begin to build an understanding. Old theories found to be incorrect are cast aside and we move on to ones based on better science--understanding.
With intelligent design you merely have a repackaged version of religion dressed up in false misleading science which is being promoted to only muddy the truth.
It is religion Jerry Springer style and is only to cause doubt and try and buy religion some more time.




There is the basic difference in science vs. faith. You can never prove god until he/she makes an appearance. With science one can prove something as much as one can prove anything without philosophical questions concerning reality.
Here is another basic difference. Even without faith in god--science exists.

I tend to agree certain leaps of faith have occurred regardless if you support Christianity or evolution “theory.” Not unlike the debate on Constitution being based on secular or Judeo-Christian values one must conclude a judicial assessment with bias decided to adapt evolution theory.

I repeat the fact that evolution is a theory and not a law and holds no more weight than opinion other than granted it by a judicial authority. For evolution to become a dominant law then it must be based on FACT.

Science has not created life, caused it to evolve, caused it to react to instinct, caused it to reason or shown proof of faith or lack thereof.

Science could as easily say the “I”, as in “I think and therefore I am” is equal to pure intelligence without form infinitely smaller than an atom moving like a satellite around a base structure a “higher being” in a black portion of endless space and the “I” creates an illusion of “a reality shared by other satellites” as such pure intelligence they possess positive and negative charges, good and evil and it would be a theory not disprovable or provable.

For one to subscribe to the FACT of evolution as basis for moral civil law one would have to agree to submit all society to the “theory” of science in enactment of all laws. If evolution is based on sustainable facts reasonable for eliminating other possibilities then likewise science would demand life begins at conception and abortion law and stem cell evaluation would have to be lawfully repealed as it would be murder. One bias cannot pick and choose which science theory they will follow if the theory rises to such level to MANDATE law.

So, if a manned Mars exploration vehicle found a solar powered laboratory containing fertilized Martian stem cells would science send headlines to the news “Life found on Mars!” Or, “Martian fertilized stem cells tissue discovered in solar powered laboratory fully mature Martians are within science’s grasps?”

To try an portray evolution as some fragile facade of myth is kind of stretching reality.
To try and negate evolution because the workings and understanding are not as of yet complete is somewhat weak. Unlike religion science trys to decipher the riddles and come up with the explanation and base it on repeatable and verifiable observations and tests.
As for the attempt to deny evolution with it must be based on FACT. is a bit strange. There are endless books with these facts available in any bookstore or library or Amazon.com.
Do we understand it completely--obviously not--or we would not need to discuss this at all and we would have yet another nail in the coffin of superstition.
To try and argue that evolution is obviously wrong because you have faith in god fails in that you are arguing that you are right because you have a "feeling" or hunch.
Religion always sidesteps the argument of proof with the faith argument because one can never "prove" the existence of god till he/she/it shows up and says "wassup y'all"
The earth is the center of the universe---D'oh!
The earth is flat-----D'oh!
The end of the world is going to happen at 1800, 1900, year 2000, 2010....
Galileo, Newton, the genome, slowly we continue to step beyond the lines in the sand drawn by religion, and it is forced to step even further back. Until finally it must try to form a holding action by trying to mix superstition with pseudoscience and create a case for an "Architect"--it should be careful or the Wachowski brothers will be able to sue religion for copyright infringement.
Evolution and how it works is neither something that can be explained in the soundbite necessary for todays society or completely understood with our current level of knowledge.
While theories once held firmly held are indeed questioned--the basic premise remains. As more and more study is done, as more and more tests are done with the ever increasing body of knowledge to recheck old theorems for validity new and more sound hypothesis are created, we get closer and closer to understanding. It could be tomorrow or 50 years from now, but we will eventually understand how it all actually happened.
But until god makes an appearance all religion can offer is "I believe"
and even if it shows up, it might just confirm evolution itself.
I do not believe in god in the classical sense and find myself more in tune with the Deist ideas and even intelligent design. In fact I find intelligent design strikes a strong resounding cord with me from the "architect" version. However until I could test the existence of such a creator I would never pass it off as truth. I would have to keep it separate in the realm of philosophy and spirituality.


uhm clarification of your point for further debate please.

There are a ton of resources on the internet to show the how fallacious the argument that ID is as scientific as evolution. It absolutely boggles my mind that people still literally believe there was a flood that covered the earth in modern times and that God created it in 7 days. AD is probably not the best place to debate this because the entire cause for one side of this argument is a single-minded religous belief. This goes either farther than other debate topics which are heavily effected by religion like gay marraige and abortion. There is no SCIENTIFIC reason or fact to believe in ID. Please point to one, someone. Every "scientific fact" that creationists have pointed to in the past century has been summarily defeated.

Intelligent Design is not science because it is a theory which in the end depends on faith.

Disproving evolutionary theory does not equate to ID having validity. Unfortuantely, most creationists believe that if they can prove there is a flaw with the current evolutionary theory, that ID can be proven a valid science. Luckily, science has evolved significantly past that type of thinking.

For an absolutely impervous summation of the whole situation I refer you to:

http://skepdic.com/creation.html

All right we are discussing a basically religious topic on a site where we don’t discuss religion so boundaries are within permissible goal posts and boundaries.

The reason I joined in on the topic is because of the appearance of bias on the secular Deist v Christian beliefs. Without facts from both sides only bias peeks to the surface. I see the Christians divided based on various interpretations of scriptures. Perhaps if a neutral social anthropologist would find an incredibly intelligent youth in a closed environment never being exposed to religion or Deism and do for the church what science has done for evolution then one may have a more objective view of what the “scriptures” intent and purpose were to determine how bias has changed the message.

I share similar thoughts as you wrote
But, I find myself in a precarious position when it comes to the “translations of scriptures” that poses different versions of directions provided by the creator to his messenger Jesus. Each religion seems to have adopted a “this fits my needs interpretation” and leaving all contradicting the other.

The Deist or secular viewpoint basically condemns religion as a fairy tale based on science. The Christian view is defensive, and I guess rightly so because the science seems to be used when it can impact Christians and not used when unpopular such as abortion and stem cell research. By the Deist & secular insisting truths in science on evolution while discarding other equal truths because it enforces Christian values (stem cell research & abortion) then science appears equally suspect to interpretation as Christianity. It appears as the secular Deists want to ethnically cleanse society of Christianity with science as the tool and therefore the negatives cancel each other out as neither being more defendable.

Just a reminder:

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

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

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


Should Intelligent design be taught in the classroom? Why not? Is there a religion in the world that does not believe in Intelligent Design? Are there not non-religious people who subscribe to the Intelligent Design theory (I for one have a strong biased against any form of organized religion and yet I favor a varient of the Intelligent Design Theory whereas we were first designed, and then improved through evolution as our limitations at each stage were discovered)? Is it possible to teach Intelligent Design without promoting religion? I think so. So why not teach it in the classroom?

Education is not just about learning what is known. It is about learning how to learn, how to judge issues, ideas, philosophies, programs, etc on merit. It is difficult to teach such critical thinking if you refuse to discuss opposing viewpoints on various topics.

Is it legal? I think so. Unless one teaches Intelligent Design by focusing on one religions faith and interpretation of it to the exclusion of all others (including the exclusion of theories like Evolution and the Big Bang that do not require religious faith). If you teach it by merely discussing the theory then you, IMHO, are NOT violating the establishment clause and you are better educating our children. Many oppose the theory of Intelligent Design on the merits, or more accurately the lack of them in this theory as they see it. Yet these same people who through Critical Thinking have determined for themselves that Intelligent Design is wrong seem to feel that other presented with the same information are incapable of coming to the same conclusion. No offense meant here, but this seems like a rather elitist viewpoint to me.

In this regard I think schools could have a "World Religions class". A class that covers the beliefs and histories of all the worlds religions without elevating one over the other or any over none. I think our society would be better served by raising a population that had a understanding of the differing view points, rather then the complete ignorance of them so many suffer now. I find it rather surprising that those that insist on teaching children about various topics because they feel it is important that the child learns of them even if their parent(s) choose not to teach it to them (safe-sex, racial equality, etc), do not feel the same about teaching religious beliefs and history. Is it better for the child's future and personal growth to limit their knowledge in these matters solely to the viewpoint and the faith (or lack there of) of their parent(s)? Can you teach safe sex, without elevating it over abstinence? I think so. So why can't you teach what others believe religiously without elevation religion over a lack of it? Why the double standard?

Should we teach Evolution. Of course. There is alot of sound science behind it. And regardless of your belief of it being right or wrong, it, like Intelligent Design is still a theory out there, that is supported by many. If you are going to cover this subject, you do a dis-service to the children you are educating if you do not cover all of the viewpoints since none have as yet been proven as fact.

The alternative IMHO is to avoid the subject all together and teach nothing in regard to evolution, intelligent design, the big bang theory, etc. That would certainly be a dis-service to our children. Better they understand the thinking behind each theory so that they can choose to support one (or none) of these theories based on merit as they see it, then to leave them ignorant of the entire concept.

To teach Evolution, without discussing Intelligent Design is an equal dis-service. If we want to truly educate our children then we need to teach them what is out there and let their critical thinking determine their own course.

The most important thing we can teach our children is Critical Thinking. It is because of Critical Thinking that so many can change their views based on what they learn and experience as they grow older and understand the world better. Without Critical Thinking, we would have a society of robots who simple adhere to what they were first taught and never grow beyond it. This would not just be wrong, it would make life terrible dull.

Yes, it is a valid interpretation of evolutionary biology.



Only if it can avoid establishing a religious system with Federal authority.



Of course it should be taught with respect to the change of genetic alleles in populations over time. The extent to which this is implicit or explicit proof of our origins is largely a philosophical problem and in classrooms we should focus on actual science, that is, on how thing actually work, not how they may or may not have come into existance.

I agree that ID as a counter-argument to evolution is an important topic in a philosophy class. ID, however, is not science. To treat evolution and ID as co-equal explanations is to do a disservice to both of them. I'm all for course work on critical thinking (such as analytical philosophy or predicate calculus), however teaching ID in a science class or teaching evolution in a religion class is not the way to do this. Science has certain standards which must be met by any proposed theory. ID does not meet those standards. This is not to say that ID is not a valuable and interesting theory, it is merely saying that ID does not qualify for the discipline known as science. If we were to violate the standards of science to permit ID as part of it, then we open the door for all sorts of non-scientific theories to be introduced, such as paranormal powers or alien visitation/abductions/guidance or "space beagles" or any other thing which by definition doesn't permit refutation. Ultimately, this is the most important aspect of critical thinking: the ability to recognize and debate the normative aspects of a theory as it applies to a given discipline. In other words, you can't just declare anything to be science. Science has standards and the theories which science employs must follow those standards. I don't know how else to say this as I feel I've repeated myself in every single post I've made on this thread.

I don't disagree that evolution has more scientific weight then ID. I don't agree or disagree that it should not be taught is science class, though I do agree that it does not meet the standards of scientific theory. In the end I would likely choose to err on the side of caution and limit it to philosophy classes as you suggest.

I also agree that you have repeated yourself in nearly every post.

What I don't quite see is why it matters in regard to this topic and why we are side-tracking this topic in this regard. No where in the questions posed do they ask if it should be taught in the SCIENCE classroom. The question is should it be taught in the classroom, would it be legal to do so, and should evolution be taught in the classroom.

The topic of whether or no Intelligent Design is truly scientific would be an interesting one. It is just on this one.

The greater question here, as far as I see it, is would it be legal to teach ID in the classroom? An interesting addition to that question might be to ask, regardless of the legality or not, would it be wise for school to risk the legal defense costs that could arise if they choose to teach it in the classroom?

In that regard, I think your point goes a long way in protecting schools. If they limit discussion of ID to philosophy class curriculums, I would think they would be less likely to be considered in violation of the establishment clause if they are not even treating ID on the same level as evolution.