[Raymond Hendrix]

What if the evidence points to inteligent design? Should "science" lie to the kids about the evidence or pretend that there is a materialistic explanation when there isn't one?

The Blind Atheist

[RJCogburn]

Should "science" lie to the kids about the evidence

Of course not. One need not be an atheist to be willing to follow data whereever it leads.

[Virginia-American]

What if the evidence points to inteligent design? Should "science" lie to the kids about the evidence or pretend that there is a materialistic explanation when there isn't one?

If the evidence were there, it should be taught as such.

But it isn't.

See my post 33

This is a two-edged sword. If the evidence shows, for example, that the Flood was not worldwide (this was *known* in the 1830's, decades before Darwin's "Origin"), should any thing else be taught as science?

It is a *fact* that the overwhelming majority of biologists, etc, are evos. It does no-one any good for a teacher to lie about widespread doubts in the biology camp.

Until creationism/id is able to make detailed predictions, and sticks its neck out by possibly being falsifed by new evidence, it is not a theory - it is merely armchair speculation, a hypothesis