Replies

He may claim that I.D. is science and not religion all day, but that doesn't change the fact that I.D. IS religion and it is NOT science, and as such it has no place in a science classroom.

Typical liberal logic. This is the same logic that the pro abortion industry uses in defense of such things as the morning after pill. If there is a threat to preventing an abortion than it must classified as pro-life which they might as well say is unconstitutional.

[Typical liberal logic. This is the same logic that the pro abortion industry uses in defense of such things as the morning after pill. If there is a threat to preventing an abortion than it must classified as pro-life which they might as well say is unconstitutional.]

The basis of my reasoning for classifying I.D. as religion and not science has nothing to do with "liberal logic" or "pro abortion" anything.

It has to do with the definition of science as I have learned it over the past 20 years of practicing it. Science is a specific thing with a specific definition and I.D. does not fit that definition. The theory of evolution does fit that definition just as much as the theory of gravitation does, and that is why it should be taught in science class.

I.D. is necessarily a religious belief because a supernatural agent is its central tenet, and therefore it should not be given weight as a scientific theory and should not be taught in science class in a public school.