[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?

[Fichori]

When only one side of an argument is taught, it is dogma.

The Nazis brainwashed their youth leaders with only one side of the story.


Dogma or Brainwashing, take your pick, its not science.


A good way to decide what to teach in balance to Evolution would be to hold debates in front of students between all competing ideas, and let the students decide which was the best competing argument.


But 'educators' know that their beloved Evolution cannot stand up to ID, and so they will do whatever it takes to make sure Evolution has no classroom competition.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

I’m inclined to consider the entire subject more apropos for a survey of religions and belief systems class.

A distinction between all these different belief systems and hard, replicable true science would go a long way toward making the whole discussion more honest.

And where there are historical proofs, such as the finding of Sodom, of the submerged Egyptian chariots circa the Exodus, etc. then let them be considered historial proofs, yet not science.

[Tramonto]

ID isn't about the designer, its about the designed. There are many irreducibly complex systems in the cell that cannot have evolved in a gradual progression that would be required by random mutation and natural selection.

As far as I know, many people have dismissed Behe’s arguments but no one has actually made any real attempt to disprove them.

If evolution is taught in a science class, it should be taught as a hypothesis and only real supporting evidence should be presented. Most texts on the subject are full of distortions and lies such as Haeckel’s Embryos and Homologies.