The assertion of "intelligent design" is a topic which goes beyond science. Why? Because it is not possible to design an experiment which could potentially falsify the claim of intelligent design. Any scientific theory must possess this property of potential falsifiability. If a theory does not posses this property then the scientific method is not applicable and it therefore falls outside the scope of science. This doesn't not necessarily mean that it is not true. It just means that science has nothing to say about it and can say nothing about it.
Personally, I am partial to the idea of intelligent design, but this is a matter of faith, not science and therefore does not belong in a science class.
"If a theory does not posses this property then the scientific method is not applicable and it therefore falls outside the scope of science. "
Same is said of observations, is it not?
The Big Bang theory is just a wet dream for Stephen Hawking. Given what we are finding out about the Universe, I would say this theory will abandoned and re-adapted roughly 6 more times before we figure it out.
Why does the Big Bang get a foot-note, and evolution get entire chapters to it? We know next to moot about it being "true" or not. Just like gravity or black holes.
Save evolution for biology and black holes for astro-physics.
"Personally, I am partial to the idea of intelligent design, but this is a matter of faith, not science and therefore does not belong in a science class."
"Personally, I am partial to the idea of (evolution), but this is a matter of faith, not science and therefore does not belong in a science class."
Now, does that sentence still fit? It does to me. Beliefe in "nothing" causing different lifeforms takes the same faith as believing in "something" causing different lifeforms.
Only difference is the "something" to believe in. If "evolution" made the species all by itself, isn't that faith in an un-observable force?
Thank you, you sensible, sensible person.