[PMCarey]

What would be so wrong with having ID (in a philosophy class, if nothing else) offered to the students?

Nothing is wrong with ID in a philosophy class; but it doesn't belong in a science class and THAT is the whole focus of the debate.

[newheart]

"Nothing is wrong with ID in a philosophy class; but it doesn't belong in a science class and THAT is the whole focus of the debate.
"

Would the determination of what constitutes evidence for intelligence/design be a subject for scientific or philosophical inquiry? Leaving aside the grand question of origins, don't we formulate experiments to ascertain causes and effects? If design or intelligence can constitute a cause (and again, I don't mean some cosmic 'first cause') isn't experimentation to examine that a reasonable endeavor for science?

I personally don't see the reason for such a strict 'firewall' between science and philosophy. In fact, I don't believe one is even remotely, logcically or practically possible.

[MamaTexan]

Nothing is wrong with ID in a philosophy class; but it doesn't belong in a science class and THAT is the whole focus of the debate.

Odd

I thought the focus of debate was the ARTICLE which states life is to complex to have been an accident.