Inherit the Windbags: Pushing Ideology into Classrooms-(IntelDesign disturbs Planned Parenthood!)

PLANNED PARENTHOOD.ORG ^ | JUNE 30, 2005 | Eric Plosky

[SuzyQue]

Religion should not be taught in a science class.

I agree. Not only because it's not science, but because I sure as heck don't want some card carrying NEA public school teacher teaching religion to my kids. I'll handle that myself, thank you.

[PatrickHenry]

Sometimes these left-wing outfits will defend a conservative cause. Usually when the ACLU does it, it's "window dressing," to show that they are really non-partisan. I think they even filed a brief for Rush. And for Oliver North too.

But in this case I guess this outfit is in it for the First Amendment issue. And they're right. Can't help it if we're on the same side for once.

[Gumlegs]

Exactly.

[LogicWings]

The fact is ID is based upon a qualitative evaluation that is not objective in any sense, that certain life processes are "too complex to have evolved by natural selection" and that isn't a statement of fact, but an opinion.

There is no scientific evaluation, nor can there be, of what is "too complex". The contra-positive is "it cannot be the result of evolution because it is too complex" which constitutes the Fallacy of Asserting the Negative.

Prove there are no Unicorns. Prove there are no Cyclops. Prove there is no God. Cannot be done, one cannot prove what doesn't exist. One can only say, "there is no evidence."

Proving evolution inadequate to answer certain questions does not prove any other alternate theory, assertion or idea. Even if it could be proven that the theory of evolution isn't sufficient to explain the complexity of life on this planet, that wouldn't justify Intelligent Design as an alternate theory. It would just deepen the mystery.

Proving one thing wrong doesn't prove anything else true.

And ID has no evidence to speak of. There isn't one iota that demands that conclusion.