I don't think Haq was speaking about me, but just to make it clear. I don't deride believers in any way as being ignorant, naive, weak etc.

I don't consider myself an atheist, but I've got my doubts about "the invisible man in the sky."

There are plenty of holes in evolutionary theory. This fact should be taught in school. All the incredibly complex processes that needed to occur for us to be here now are sorta like playing poker and getting 5 full houses in a row. In other words, if there isn't a "God" it was one chance in a million that we're all here right now.

I acknowledge the point made by IDers that if we're talking about things that stand up to the scientific method, how do you test a theory that at it's core has events which occur over such a long length of time as to be untestable?

Despite all this I still don't think ID should be taught in school.

Steve

But in an infinite universe, the chance was 100%

BUT WHERE DID INFINITY COME FROM? AAAAAGGH!

But give me 4 billion years and my chances go up.

Ok, starting... now!

This hand sucks. Why is that guy stabbing himself?

I agree with this, and I'm not nearly as reactively critical of religion or religious messages as an ass-ton of people on this "open-minded" board.

At the same time, I believe in evolution and view ID as a politcal movement first, scientific second. I also do not believe that we have to have all the answers in order to accept certain assumptions as fact. We should spend more time explaining theories versus guesses.

Plus, just how intelligent was a designer who put the breathing tube and the eating tube in the same damn place?

I had to read The Gospel according to John in 12th grade English, and judge on its merits as a piece of literature. We also used to apply the Christ Complex to several other works (Old Man and the Sea) is one that comes to mind.

I think the year after that they shut the class down, though. Wouldn't want any 'ligion bein discussed rationally or anything.

Senator, you probably were in an Advanced Placement College English course, which does rely on the bible as a work of literature quite frequently.

Haq, I too fear retaliation from the lefties/atheists as well, but the underlying issue I'm more concerned about isn't the discussion of these facts - teachers welcome discussions! - but the fact that true discussion is not being accepted by many who put their political/religious agenda way above creating the best quality education for an entire state or nations children.

All over Kansas classrooms are discussing these issues. When I get to it, i'll spend some class time over Darwin, Einstein, Nietzsche and Freud most likely erroding the concept of Objective Truth as we know it and bringing about our post-modern world of subjective choice, and how it has been changing our relationship to the world and people around us. I'm pretty certain we'll bring up intellegent design - we usually do. My fear however, is that soon six people on the State Board of Education will begin dictating their specific religious and political views over a valid pursuit of knowledge and healthy and rational debate. It is this that I cannot abbide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with science. God, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism all having exactly nothing to do with science. I don't see any point of debate here. God, or an intelligent designer if there is such a thing, can neither be proven nor disproven to exist. As such it violates the one of the central assumptions of the scientific method, that of falsifiability. A theory must be able to be proven incorrect. It is only as good as the data that supports it, which is why the theory of evolution has stood the test of time. And remember that it's only a theory. Theories in science have fallen many times. Evolution could fall one day too, but at this point it seems unlikely. But a "theory" of intelligent design or more accurately, creationism, can never be falsified as its central tenet can neither be proven nor disproven. It's a matter of faith and religion and not science and should not be taught or preached in a classroom. Go to a fucking church if you want to hear that.

It's not really creationism in the traditional sense. In fact they are claming it's a scientific theory. Uh, do we really need a history lesson to see how God and science have had some sort of relationship over the last 2000 years? Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I'm not necessarily a proponent of the theory. In fact I haven't studied it enough either way to make a valid case. But where is the harm in introducing the controversy and having a RATIONAL discussion on said topic? That's not preaching a point of view. I'm not advocating taking evolution out or putting God in, but let the FACTS and IDEAS speak for themselves.

That's my point. There are NO FACTS about creationism. It's a fucking story that has nothing to do with science or theory, so it shouldn't exist in the school or be taught alongside the work of men and women who have dedicated their lives to study and progressing human knowledge.

First of all creationism does not equal intelligent design. I think they have somewhat of a plausible theory (based on at least a little science). I don't know if it is correct or even close. It could be laughable, but the supposed idea behind ID is that it uses real science to prove it's theory. Doesn't that deserve at least being examined. Or does the mere fact that God and Science in the same breasth mean no?

God and Science do not belong in the same sentence. You can call it creationism, intelligent design, I don't care. It's the same suit, just a different colour. You want to understand what science is, read The Logic Of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper or The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Science is about testing hypothesis, running experimentsand gathering data. There can be no true scientific theory that implements anything resembling a Creator. It's not science anymore.

What kind of science limits the possiblities. Dude, I understand scientific theory. In my albiet limited understanding of ID, the point is the progression of life has not been a grand accident, but out of purpose. Like I said, if it's baloney, than the evolution will crush it in the classroom. If it actually has some feet than we might gain some new understanding. Fuck, we might learn that both are wrong, but nothing is gained by shutting one possiblity out.

the demos should make a trade with the repubs - intelligent design in the classroom for an upper bracket tax increase of 5%

He's taking a fundamental approach, tanner. If ID has anything to do, at any stage, with involving an omnipotent god, then it's sorta out the window as far as actual science goes. A basic tennet of actual science is that you don't get a By in explaining anything, ie, "well god did it." You have to actually figure out what makes stuff tick, and not get impatient and say that someone you can't find or prove exists did it. You also can't shoehorn him into what science has (through several thousand years of hard work) been able to finally show as verifiable (dispite persecution at most every turn by them believers), and say "It's a new theory!" Mmm, it probably really isn't. It's just a new way to present the same basic idea that the last theory had... "oh yeah, I know, but that's only because god SAID it could do that."

That being said, I have enough respect for you in particular, and for most general folks at large, to discuss it rationally, without hesitation. That's just a measure of respect, in my opinion, and you've more than earned it. I'll debate it here without flinching... no problem. Will I discuss it calmly when I have kids and they're school-age, and the town I live in decides to put up a referendum to teach MY children that their god is responsible for the universe? I have to be honest and tell you that no, I don't think I will. That's raising my kids for me, and that's a basic right I'm going to hang onto with claws.

I get you, buddy. I do.

Thanks, and I really respect your right to teach your children as you please, and by no means do I want to bring religion into school. I know the real problem will be in execution as jeff put it.

This is the most incredible thing I've heard of in a while...

I'm in.

Science doesn't limit possibilities at all. If an idea can be tested empirically, then it's worthy of scientific scrutiny. I don't want to sound like an asshole, but if you say you understand what a scientific theory is, you wouldn't be pondering this point. I'm not closeminded at all, as I work in a scientific area that many would say is tantamount to career suicide. Anyone who knows me would laugh if anyone called me closeminded to different ideas, including some areas that border onto metaphysics. But if life has been designed out of purpose, then why the hell don't these ID people present actual data instead of producing irrefutable and philosophical descriptors like "irreducible complexity" or "specified complexity".

I think I'm doing a bad job of explaining myself. I understand scientific theory, and I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN'T PROVE God.I think they can prove evolution might have some holes that need splaining. What I'm saying is let them make their case, If it doesn't hold up than so be it. That's the best way to resolve this, even from the point of view of an atheist. For the record, I believe in God and evolution. My brother in law has a PhD in evolutionary biology, and we've discussed this ad nauseum, so trust me I know what you're saying. And Dump I respect your opinion and I'm not accusing you of being close minded.

I think the problem is that they're immediately trying to have their say in schools, before really submitting their views to the scientific community (the leading ID biologist, Michael Behe, has not submitted anything on ID to any respected scientific journals - he just up and published a book written to a lay audience).

I get where yr coming from and see your point, I know I take an ultra-con stance on this issue. Fortunately, I'm not a policy maker nor an evolutionary biologist (I'm a PhD in biophysics), so the debate on this issue is left to others more informed on the topic and I welcome the opportunity for both sides to duke it out in a scientific forum. Also, just to let you know, I got no beef with God beliefs. We're cool, man.

PhD in biophysics makes your opinon alot more qualified than mine, but I'm hardheaded sometimes.