Why is this so hard?
From what I gather, some folks think that if they can "disprove" evolution, then ID somehow "wins" by default and is thus "proven".
They're wrong, of course (by which I mean that disproving one theory is never itself positive evidence for any other hypothesis, even if it seems the "only" alternative), but that seems to be the notion they've got.
"why is this so hard?"
"Evolution is not a scientific theory because it cannot be proven or disproven in a laboratory or by other scientific methods. It's an idea that you either take on faith, or you don't. As such it has no place being taught in a science classroom AS FACT."
That is why this is so hard, coupled w/ the fact that scientists are quite aware that young kids listen to scientists, and extrapolate the moral implications into choices that they make into their own lives.
And, despite the utter social nightmare kids are exposed to today, the scientists remain .... deadly quiet. Why? Well, there's certainly no need for a conspiracy if everyone is on the same page.
What is the 'same page'? All you have to look at is this: how does any science dept PAY for itself at ANY university. The cash flow analysis betrays the same page, and that page is directly connected to politics and liberal democrats protection of a constituency. In effect, the scientific establishment is a complicated version of a longshoreman's union .... with the attendant rules, union practices, regulations, and soap operas. It is actually quite predictable.
And, oh yes, what is the consequence if someone gets out of line? In academia, the options for discipline are many ...
Why is this so hard?
Because the objective is not to teach science. The objectives are: 1) to attack and discredit a scientific theory (evolution) and, if necessary, attack and discredit science in general (by calling it a religion); 2) forcefully promote the teaching of a specific religious belief (ID/Creationism).
On the one hand attack science (or a scientific theory) as invalid and equivalent to a religion to justify the teaching of an alternative religious belief. On the other hand, try to make a religious belief look like science to justify teaching it in a science class.
The objectives of these people are clear. IMO, rather than arguing with them, it's best to just point out what they are really trying to do....forcefully proselytize their religious beliefs. This is what religious fanatics who want to force the teaching of their religious beliefs on others do.
I agree. If it can be tested (note: not "proven") then it's science; if it can't then it's philosophy. If it's philosophy then it should be taught with other forms of philosophy: eg: religious studies (which I *do* think should be taught in schools).
Why are they pushing ID. Are they afraid to say "God"?