[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Two questions, Two answers.

ID is a science? NO. No more than evolution. Scientific METHOD should be applied to all observed phenomena and fraudulent alleged phenomena, such as Piltdown Man.

ID should be taught in science classes? YES, as hypotheses, not fact, given equal time with evolution or none to either.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

OK, a couple more questions: do you agree that micro-evolution happens? If no, why not? If yes, then why not teach evolution at least at that level?

And what scientific rationale leads you to a foundation for ID? Evolutionists can at least point to micro-evolution which most ID supporters concede is factual...

[buck jarret]

ID has nothing to recommend it. When you separate God & religion, you have bastardized religion, not science.

[Coyoteman]

ID is a science? NO. No more than evolution. Scientific METHOD should be applied to all observed phenomena and fraudulent alleged phenomena, such as Piltdown Man.

Evolution is a science, in spite of the anti-science religious propaganda you apparently are listening to.

It is a science because it follows the scientific method.

And you want the scientific method applied to Piltdown Man? You are half a century too late! A scientific test about 1953 showed that that find was assembled from fossils from different time periods.

ID should be taught in science classes? YES, as hypotheses, not fact, given equal time with evolution or none to either.

ID is pure religion, with the serial numbers filed off in an effort to get back into science classes. The modern version of ID was cooked up shortly after creation "science" was removed from classrooms by the U.S. Supreme Court--with the goal of sneaking religion right back into the classrooms.

But you say ID is an hypothesis? And it should be taught as an equal with the theory of evolution? What then would be the curricula if ID was in the classrooms?

How about giving us a brief outline, just maybe 10 or 12 lines, of what the course of study for ID might be.

[Caramelgal]

ID should be taught in science classes? YES, as hypotheses, not fact, given equal time with evolution or none to either.

Then if you really believe that ID should be taught in science classes as equal to scientific theory and given equal time to the scientific theory of evolution, then I presume you are open minded enough and prepared to demand that all the possible “intelligent designers” should be taught as an equally viable hypothesis including Vishnu and Shiva, Ra and Horus, Pele and Ranginui, Inktomi, Odin, Papatuanuku, Elohim and Xenu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Or are you proposing that only the God of Abraham can be the only possible intelligent designer? And if so are you then prepared to teach that the creation stories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have equal footing or just the Christian one?