As for me, I was pleased to find a post by someone who, although they may hold different views than me, shares the view that rational discourse is the best hope for advancing knowledge in this area.
I am an evolutionist (both micro- and macro-) who concedes that evolution does not explain the origins of life, it doesn't attempt to. People who are much more educated than me, both Theologically and Scientifically, are working on that question now and will be for a long time.
I hold the view that if there is a non-deity who is the Intelligent Designer, then we will find him in due course. If the Intelligent Designer is a Deity, then how can we scientifically know anything about Him? If one holds to the belief that God created the universe and all life within it, either discretely or by starting the evolutionary ball rolling, then science won't be able to prove or disprove it.
As for the teaching of Intelligent Design in secondary school science classrooms, I am opposed. The sciences are clearly defined disciplines that attempt to explain our universe via clear, reproducible observations. While the leaders of the Discovery Institute have gone on record in the past as proposing that ID be the "wedge" in getting creationism taught in schools, that alone isn't the reason why ID shouldn't be taught. ID proponents have also portrayed it as an "alternative" to the things that evolution can't, (or has yet to), explain. That also isn't the biggest reason that I am opposed to it, but it does strike me as a weak argument when in principle, all they are doing is trying to tear evolution down, not proposing something to better explain the evidence.
The biggest reason that I am opposed to ID in science class is that ID has yet to propose a theory worthy of scientific study. That isn't to say that they are ultimately wrong or right about the origins of life, it is just to say that they haven't proposed a way for science to find out. In short, ID isn't science, it is philosophy. And if the day comes when ID proposes a coherent theory that can be explored scientifically, I will gladly write to my school board, legislators and newspapers to argue for the inclusion of ID in the curriculum.
Again, thanks for the opportunity to vent a little.
You posted a few thoughts that interested me to hear more.
explain our universe via clear, reproducible observations. This one gets me every time, I wont yell SHOW ME THE MONKEY, but how is macro-evolution reproducible? Every time I ask it, I get toasted, but would love to see a coherent outline, so I keep asking. :o)
As for the teaching of Intelligent Design in secondary school science classrooms, I am opposed. I am starting to lean that way also but not for the same reason. I realize that the bias against any ID topic is strong and the narrow gate to publishing in peer reviewable journals is tightly controlled. I think that ID needs to do it's homework for another few years (evolution payed its dues before it was accepted to be taught even though my opinion is that it shouldn't be taught either (macro only).
ID should get stronger within its ranks, but the possibility of getting serious consideration and publication in the peer reviewed works will continue to go the way of some of our threads. Science say it's theology and theology saying its science.
ID isn't science, it is philosophy. My feelings are the same in regards to macro-evolution. I see we stand diametrically opposed, and that is fine with me. If I only talked to ID'ers I wouldn't learn anything new.
Thank you for your time, response(s), thoughts and comments. I will defend your right to believe anything you want, anytime, anywhere. It is refreshing to see reciprocation.
K4