[SirJohnBarleycorn]

I.D. is not science, as it can't be tested.

What should be taught along with evolutionary theory are the scientifically-based criticisms of Darwin's theory, and they certainly exist.

The claim that allowing science-based criticism of Darwinism is "the end of science" is MSM eyewash to fool the gullible.

Darwinists remind me of those classical physicists who, when relativity theory was introduced, simply dismissed it, unwilling to even debate the evidence or the theory.

Or those relativity theorists like Einstein himself who, when quantum mechanics was introduced, dismissed it with his famous saying, "God doesn't play dice with the universe."

There have been so many orthodoxies of science in the past that have turned out to be incorrect or incomplete and their many adherents went down with the ship, clinging to their wrong theories to very last.

I predict that 50 years from now Darwinism will be one of those orthodoxies.

[gobucks]

"I predict that 50 years from now Darwinism will be one of those orthodoxies."

I don't think it will take that long.

[cogitator]

What should be taught along with evolutionary theory are the scientifically-based criticisms of Darwin's theory, and they certainly exist.

Which criticism of Darwin's theory is the best one to start with?

[GreenOgre]

I predict that 50 years from now Darwinism will be one of those orthodoxies.

That's what creationists said 50 years ago.