Replies

Wrong again. I do not suggest that evolutionary theory be taught exclusively, but that the alternatives should be restricted--in science classes--to those which are founded in science. Intelligent design has never utilized science to suggest it is a possible alternative. There has been no reason, based upon scientific data, established to put ID in a "scientific context."

Because to you, a non-scientist, it seems like science...that does not make it so.

I welcome all other alternatives which have scientifically-tested hypotheses as their basis.

The only "scientific data" that supports evolution is the similarity in genomes between some different species. That's about it. There is no other observable evidence (templar put it pretty well a few posts up).

The "scientific data" that supports ID is no less - the actual existence of a structure as complex as the human eye. Evolution fails to provide any answer as to how such a complicated structure could possibly come into place without a non-random, deliberate influence. It would require several different and otherwise purposeless organs to spontaneously come about by random chance in such a configuration as to actually be useful. The odds of such a thing happening by random occurence arguably 1 in infinity. Easier to believe that every person on the planet throws a deck of cards up in the air and they all land in a neat pile in numerical and suit sequence. I frankly find the odds of intelligent design to be far less improbable. As such, yes, there is logic behind it.

Oh, and you keep claiming I'm "not a scientist". Amusing. How do you know I'm not? We do all know about assumptions, right? Or is your contention that no Christian can possibly be a scientist? Cause I'm just agnostic, and for you that's enough to consign me into your little "illogical" box. I can only imagine that you feel Christians are practically insane.

For the record, I majored in Computer Science and minored in Mathematics.

ID isn't itself a "scientific theory", so much as it is a pointing out of a tremendous flaw in the theory of evolution itself. You claim that you'd be willing to accept other "scientific" alternatives, but face it, there are none. Either it all happened by random chance, or there was a deliberate intelligence involved. To believe the former requires a leap of faith. So does the latter. The fact that you purport that one is "scientific" and not the other is only a reflection of where your own faith lies.

Qwinn