I consider science to be founded mostly on rules and fact, and the assumptions based on logic rather than good guesses. Having said that and as a lover both of Science and God, not equally of course I see room in the classroom to mention a competing ideology to Darwinism, an ideology that has been around a few thousand years longer, embraced by 2/3's of the worlds inhabitants. 5 minutes of classroom time to say " Darwinism isnt the only theory, there is also the Theory of Intelligent design", isnt that much of a compromise.
There are at least three problems with that: (1) Government schools shouldn't be teaching religious doctrines; (2) By comparing fact-based science with some unverifiable alternative, some parents will complain that the teacher is giving an unfair presentation of religion; and (3) evolution is a scientific theory, the alternatives like ID/creationism are not.
The scientific method. Wikipedia article. Exhaustive discussion.
But it's "JUST a THEORY" . You really must read this.
Ichneumon on the Scientific Method. It's post 401 and it's excellent.
What's a Scientific Theory? Encyclopedia article.
Five minutes wouldn't be that much time, but to call it science would be a lie.
From post #17: The premise of ID is based upon a negative assumption, that some structures are too complex to have been created by natural means. Stated as a premise this would be:
Natural processes could not have created certain structures in the Universe and in living beings because these structures are too complex.
This is the very thing that cannot be proven or verified. You can't prove that something didn't happen.
Given the caution in post #17, please state clearly what the "theory" of intelligent design is. Please include any necessary assumptions as well.
This has been done for the theory of evolution by thousands of scientists and for 150 or so years. No amount of condemnation of evolution will serve to validate the "theory" of intelligent design. As a theory it has to stand on its own. So, what is that theory?
Fine, I would agree to that provided you creationists would agree to putting the following other theories on an equal footing with ID:
Astrology
Alchemy
Palmistry
Reading tea leaves
Voodoo
Wiccan
etc.
What I don't understand about you creationists is that you seem to lack the basic discernment between a proper scientific theory and the halucinatory ravings of the Discovery Institue. They are not on the same level.