[Exnihilo]

It would have been more interesting if he'd been trying to teach Intelligent Design theory along side Evolution. That's a court case I'm still waiting on.. it's only a matter of time..

Quick, someone tell me that Intelligent Design theory "isn't science"!! Then I'll respond, as usual, asking for a detailed explaination of why, and as usual, no substantive response will follow. Gotta love these threads.

[PatrickHenry]

Quick, someone tell me that Intelligent Design theory "isn't science"!

The evidence for ID is identical to the evidence for divine design. It goes like this: "Golly, I can't figure out how X happened. Therefore ... "

Because that isn't evidence, ID "theory" is not science.

[Hunble]

I have absolutly no problem with the Intelligent Design theory being taught in school, as long as they teach the details of how it works.

[ThinkPlease]

Quick, someone tell me that Intelligent Design theory "isn't science"!!

I'll bite on this one. ID theory isn't science. Why? While Dembski et al have embroiled themselves in various debates on various college campuses, I've been surprised at the lack of detail in the ID theory. While information theory has undergone peer review, and is becoming an accepted method of mathematically looking at a problem, the method of its application to mutation as an information generation has not been firmly established. When that happens, then perhaps ID will have reached some sort of scientific status.

Until then, Dembski et al seem to be more interested in getting approval in political circles instead of scientific circles. That disturbs me, as he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in convincing peers, but politicians.

Your turn.

[gore3000]

It would have been more interesting if he'd been trying to teach Intelligent Design theory along side Evolution. That's a court case I'm still waiting on.. it's only a matter of time..

It ain't gonna happen.

The SC is full of atheists with no morals. It is time for conservatives to realize that those 9 old fools are our enemy and the enemy of the Constitution we hold dear.

[Doctor Stochastic]

It's up to you to present the theory with evidence. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative side. Please post the evidence. You might start with an example of something that is not-designed compared to something that is designed.

[Physicist]

Quick, someone tell me that Intelligent Design theory "isn't science"!! Then I'll respond, as usual, asking for a detailed explaination of why,

Because it's not testable.