Designing Dover

Of course, but what's open minded about adding ONE religion's teachings to the spectrum? No one is proposing a religion class. I think that would be a good idea. What they are saying is to add ID to science class alongside evolution. It is not science. Science classes are typically open minded about science, but that does not include teaching astrology, does it? So why should we teach ID?

Find me anyone who does not want to admit that evolution is a theory. There aren't any, because "theory" is not a detriment, as is the common misconception. I'm not sure when I became an "evolutionist," but I'd rather not fall into such an arbitrary category. Anyway, what ANTI-evolutionists, like yourself don't understand, is that calling evolution a theory, rather than a fact does not mean it is not proven. Would you consider the theory of Gravity, or the theory of germs unproven? No, because in order for an idea to earn the title "theory," it MUST be proven. Evolution has been proven on a micro and macro level. It is observable as a phenomenon, and it is currently in effect in many situations. The only reason it is a theory, is that we cannot prove that it is the fact that WE evolved. We know it happens, but we are just theorizing that it happened to us. It is, however, by far the most plausable theory. Another common misconception is that evolution is random, a cooincidence, or a chance happening. It is not Natural selection is a highly complicated process that involves precise alterations in genetic structure to better suit an organism's environment. It is also a natural process. Creation, ID, or whatever, is an hypothesis, at best. It is an uneducated guess, based on little to no actual information. It is one of the most unscientific attempts we have at an answer. It is not a theory, because it has not been proven by any means. So what if a bunch of people believe in creation? Are you proposing that belief lends any support whatsoever? Not long ago, everyone believed the world was flat. Does that make it true? No. I must also remind you that most religions are based upon stories millenia old, so their tennets may not be very up-to-date. You, as well as most religious apologists, seem to approach science with massive, and unwielding criticism. Why not try the same with your own "theory?" You continually equate the two ideas, when it's obvious that one has the upper hand. Scientists generally leave religion alone. They don't go out attacking believers, because their goal is towards knowledge. They don't need to constantly pester people with their dogmatic nonsense, because it's useless. Religion is a tool to keep people from moving forward. Socrates, Galileo, Copernicus, Keplar, Newton, Darwin; they all were persecuted, or killed for their questions, and affinity towards knowledge. Still, though, religion sticks its ugly little head in and ruins everything. Please try to think about it. Science wants nothing more than to learn. Refuse if you want, just don't bother the smart guys. People have always blindly accepted religion as their sole source of fact, and it is responsible for damn near all the problems with the world. Religion is currently the driving opposition of ESCR, global warming, abortion, space travel, contraception (really?), and fundamentally any scientific proposition. Why? Because a 2,000 year old text implies that some delusional figure will punish you. Why? Because he says so. It's a fictional, arbitrary objection to all human progress. So, I emplore you, research evolution, research your terms, compose a table if you need to; just weigh evolution and creation equal handedly, sans bias, and with the same thinking. My guess is, if you actually do this, you'll make the right decision. Remember: evolution = fact w/evidence. Creation = guess w/o evidence, based on unknown sources.