Excuse me, isn't that a civil rights organization? YOu sound.... damn.. I would WANT to say how disgusted I am by you, but you know... debate thread.

We've managed to get god out of most things. Works pretty well

seamusz - You still haven't answered how the theory of evolution questions the very existence of God.

EDIT: You can worship AT school, but you can't put religious issues like ID in school books, because not just christians read those.

So just as to disprove evolution would make a belief in a Creator more justifiable, the pushing of evolution is making atheism more justifiable.

there's a very good reason it doesn't mention god. They HAD to get rid of all references to god in order for them to stand a CHANCE at it getting ecknowledged as a science. Luckily we see through this ruse

Not at all. Evolution is also a complex process. Why couldn't that process have been devised by a god? I'm not going to pretend I have any idea where the universe came from. I feel it's not my place to speculate on that. I'm just here so I just do what I do. Maybe a god created it, maybe it's just there, who knows.

But what I'm saying is this. (I'm deprived of sleep and I played a four-hour poker session earlier, so I'm sorry if what I'm saying isn't cohesive.) Some people find it wildly improbable that life could start on its own and a lowly bacterium could eventually evolve into man. (Of course, these same people find it perfectly plausible that a magical being would create a planet in six days and... oh, never mind. That's not the point.) But maybe that's the whole beauty of it. Maybe the very complexity of the system is the product of a god? So you see, evolution can point to the existance of a god just as it can point away from it. But on its own, I still think evolution says nothing about God, nor should it.

Yes, some atheists do use evolution as a reason not to believe in God (Douglas Adams and Richard Dawkins being famous examples), but even so I think it's absurd to say that scientists are pushing evolution as a way of forcing their atheism on people, or as a way of telling the world that God doesn't exist, which is what you seemed to be suggesting.

- Kef

As for the "six days" comment (well, my most recent one), I was just making a point. There's a lot in the Bible that's very implausible on its own.

OK, suppose then that we have this "ID evolution" theory, since that's how you see my conjecture, that God designed the processes of life and evolution and then sat back and let everything evolve on its own. Well... why all the fuss about then? This would be integrating ID and evolution, but all the fuss happens when you try to separate the two, presenting ID as an alternative to evolution.

- Kef

Yes, evolution is a random process... but that does not mean that the initial conditions could not have been designed by a god. It just means that a god did not specifically set out to design zebras, platypuses, aye-ayes, or other animals with funny names. He (according to this conjecture) just created a framework where this would be possible by random chance. The theory of evolution does not say that life itself evolved by random chance, nor did it say the universe randomly popped into existence. There is plenty of room for non-randomness. What is random is that genes mutate randomly. But the existence of genes in the first place doesn't have to be random.

- Kef

Not much is known about the earliest development of life. However, all existing organisms share certain traits, including the cellular structure, and the genetic code. Most scientists interpret this to mean all existing organisms share a common ancestor, which had already developed the most fundamental cellular processes, but there is no scientific consensus on the relationship of the three domains of life (Archea, Bacteria, Eukaryota) or the origin of life.

Regardless of what ID and evolution concern, the fact remains, this is all going to be taught in science class.

Evolution is a scientific theory, comprised of justifiable evidence that it exactly what happened, based on similarities between species and so fourth.

Intelligent design does not have any scientific evidence to back it up, except for the argument that evolution cannot possibly be true. Once they come up with a way to prove that intelligent design does occur, it should not be taught in science class.

Don't get me wrong, I have full respect for anyone's beliefs, but evolution is science. That's what should be taught. And besides, much stranger things have happened.

Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one.

ID is a form of creationism because it more or less explicitly declares the existence of God (without actually using the word "God") and that he designed the universe. This idea, as I have stated, is not scientific and therefore does not belong in a science book.

This quote is exactly right. Intelligent Design is a religious-based idea because it's obvious the "intelligence" in question is supposed to be some sort of deity.

You say that ID has a place in science class, whether or not it is itself science, but I must ask: why?

As for pointing to other articles, the reason we do it is because they already express our thoughts nicely.

- Kef

In your opinion.

In your opinion

Where did I say this?

I think I should make it clear that I don't think that ID should be taught as a scientific thoery, but that I should be covered briefly as an alternative theory to evolution, and that they should also point out some of the gaping holes in evolution.

If you were sitting down with a friend, would you hand out little articles and say "well this is pretty much what I think"? No, of course not. Its rude.