Replies

Why should the theory of evolution even HAVE to stand up to any kind of test, when it is common knowledge? What a ridiculous position. There is no intelligent designer. There is not such thing as "God", "love", "affection" or the like. These CONCEPTS--and they are ONLY concepts--are mere names we give to the chemical reactions within our neurological systems. The sooner you wake up to these truths, the better off you'll be. . . .

Your sarcasm is closer to reality than you might think.

And that's why the debate is one of emotion, not reason, although far more for your side than mine.

You can accept ID and still believe 99.9 percent of the Theory of Evolution.

You can accept ID and still be an atheist (albeit why one should chose to believe in material spacemen creators than a supernatural one leads to other questions).

You can't accept ID, however, and believe that man is the ultimate intelligence for if we are not one must conclude that there is something to which we must account for the actions we take public and private. This is a life-changing thought.

There are no scientitic reasons to oppose ID -- only religious ones.

You can accept ID - but you certainly can't test it, or gather evidence for it, or falsify it.

There ARE scientific reasons to oppose ID being taught in SCIENCE classes, when it is simply not science. There is no testable, falsifiable hypothesis for the Theory of Intelligent Design.

There are no scientitic reasons to oppose ID -- only religious ones.

I can't accept that statement. If ID moves from hypothesis to a potentially falsifiable theory, there'd still be plenty of scientific reasons to oppose it ... just as there are plenty of scientific reasons to oppose most scientific theories. If there weren't, our understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology would never have improved.

Scientists should ALWAYS be allowed to question existing scientific theory and hypotheses --- even their own! --- in fact, it is necessary that this happens for science to be "science".

And before anyone states that this is why ID should be taught in schools, please understand that the scientific community wants issues that rise to the level of SCIENTIFIC theory be taught ...

I mean, I was taught multiple theories on why earth has a moon (captured by earth's gravity, chuck of the earth itself), so science definitely allows for multiple theories to be taught ... but not just ANYTHING. For instance, I couldn't say the moon was a paper-mache project I created in 2nd grade and taped to the sky ... as that theory is disproven by current evidence. For instance, I was a slacker in 2nd grade and didn't do my work.