Intelligent Design Needs to Be Stopped!

it's not taught as fact, it's taught as a theory just like evolution

hypothetical question - if you found a working clock in the middle of the field (and of course you didn't know what a clock was) and you saw all of its working parts moving in unison with all of the other parts would you say that something created it or would you say it's just here, lying in the middle of the field, in all of it's complexities still just here, it's by chance it exists?

There should be no problem in our educational system with questioning any "theory", whether evolution or intelligent design. Theories are published to encourage discussion and thought. Laws are created to limit discussion and free thought.

The Discovery Inst. uses the term "theory" to snow the public, and I'm surprised it has worked on some of you on current.com. Please do your research...you will find out that they don't call it "creationism" anymore, but they still teach young-earth in direct opposition to carbon-dating and other SOUND SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

Intelligent Design is not science. It should be taught in a philosophy of religion class in college, not alongside H.S. Bio.

Wake up!!!

intelligent design is not a science. How you you propose to teach ID? What evidence do you point to? What is the lesson plan, shadowtrekker?

If there is a designer behind all of this, the designer is either:

1. Pissed that one of the designs is wiping out all it's other designs.

2. Really pissed that the design that is supposed to be watching over the other designs is destroying them instead.

3. Totally frustrated that this one design is so out of control and can't even get along with others of the same design, and has since found another hobby or occupation.

4. Will wipe out the bad design to protect the rest of it's products.

DeliaTheArtist -

To answer this question, it is first necessary to understand the two assumptions on which science is based. The first is that man can accurately observe his surroundings and formulate laws to describe it (the observable axiom). The second is that every event that has happened, is happening or will happen can be explained by math, chemistry, physics or biology (the naturalistic axiom). Science requires both axioms to function properly.

Within scientific circles, the theory of evolution must be true because science has no way to disprove it. When science assumes that all events have a naturalistic explanation, it also assumes that the theory of evolution is true. The naturalistic axiom does not allow scientists to consider the possibility that perhaps God used evolution as a tool to create life. Science simply assumes that this possibility is false; As a result, scientific experiments focus on how evolution happens not whether or not the theory is true.

The naturalistic axiom allows science to do some very interesting things. For example, science has yet to figure out how life originated. Using the naturalistic axiom for justification, this major flaw in evolutionary theory has been quietly swept under the rug. As a result, today very few scientists are involved in origins research and the origin of life will likely remain a mystery.

Perhaps even more interesting, science does not have a plausible explanation for how the first genes and proteins evolved. Here the scientific community has chosen to do something completely different. Instead of sweeping this problem under the rug, they label any scientist who conducts experiments or develops mathematical and computer models to look at this issue a Creationist. This label destroys the scientific credibility of both the scientist and his (or her) ideas and findings.

Point-by-point arguing misses the heart of the matter.

To believe in science and the evidence of plants, animals, humans, beyond the dates in the bible is not to say that one does not believe in God. Darwin himself believed in God and reconciled science and religion; "at the time of writing On the Origin of Species he remained a theist, convinced of the existence of God as a First Cause" (Wikipedia).

The heart of the matter is that religion is not science -- in fact, its basis is exactly one of Faith, or the belief in things unseen. Science, likewise, is not religion -- it works in the realm of evidence via the scientific method.

These two domains meet when they scratch at the origin of life, but they are not contrary and they are not in opposition to each other -- unless those with a radical agenda claim them to be in conflict.

To me, the concerns raise by the article are:

(1) teaching two different domains [science and religion] in a purely scientific context.
-- How can one use the scientific method on religious ideas?
-- What will young people think religion is? Isn't there a risk to losing the soul of religion when classifying it as a science? What about the mystery of faith?

(2) to minor children who (a) at about 16 are only beginning to develop the cognitive ability to abstract, and (b) are supposed to be gaining the knowlege base with which to understand these complex ideas, not being given the complex ideas before they have a basis for understanding. The mission of compulsory K-12 education is being changed by this law.

(3) The First Amendment of the constiution is being violated. The state cannot support religious teachings -- it is an affront to the citizenry and it is dangerous for religion, too.

(4) One religious belief is being taught, but not others. If the true reason for including an alternate "theory" is to show that there are other possible explanations, then the board would equally allow the teaching of the Torah, the Koran, the creation beliefs of various indigenous tribes, and so on in such a class.
When one considers this, it is clear their purpose is not to introduce various theories -- just one theory.

The state cannot force a child to go to school (compulsory education) and learn a specific religion that may be against his/her religious beliefs.

If parents have such a strong belief in creationism, they can choose to send their students to christian school.

The state is charged with providing a free and PUBLIC education to all children, and it is paid for by all of us. The first amendment guarantees a separation of church and state.

Louisiana will be sued and it will be overturned.

End of debate.

www.au.org

How about we let ID be taught right alongside evolution in a science class? I see no harm in that. Worldly truths are found out through science. Application of research and evidence to the scientific method to form hypothosis, and then prove or disprove hypothosis. Form a hypothosis for both evolution and intellegent design and see which one scientifically holds more water. Debate over!

I agree, they should both be presented

So much fear. If someone is right then fear of showing what another person thinks is nil.

I can't believe people who dislike monopolies continue to support one.