[MacDorcha]

"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?

[Avenger]

"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.

---

You don't get it. In absolute terms any scientific theory is false because it is an approximation. Any theory of evolution (or gravity, light, etc.) in existence now or at any time in the future is ultimately false because they are all necessarily approximations. Nevertheless, what makes these theories scientific is the fact that they can be used to make prediction (right, wrong, or close to the mark) and those predictions can be tested enabling us to refute parts of the theory and/or improve the theory thereby getting better predictions. Evolution, whether it is true or false or a poor and partial approximation, is a scientific theory because it is susceptible to the methods of science; the issue of intelligent design - whether pro or con - is not.