[Qwinn]

Everything you just said can also be applied to the theory of evolution. Unless you build a time machine and observe evolution in process, or you can actually produce trans-species evolution in experimental conditions, or you can actually work out an evolutionary path that can adequately explain how the cornea, rod, iris, pupil and all the other mechanisms that make an eye work happened "spontaneously", evolutionary theory is no more based on hard science then intelligent design. As such, both are equal of consideration. Neither is more established as fact than the other.

Qwinn

[Rudder]

Wrong again. Using the criterion that something must be establish as fact is not the same as using the criterion that for the theory to be scientific it must be founded upon data which were generated by the scientific method. ID is not established as fact and neither is evolutionary theory. ID is not based upon scientific data but evolutionary theoy is. There's no bias or prejudice here and that's a cheap shot. Teaching cooking in a music class would be inappropriate, just as teaching a non-scientifc idea would be in a science class.

[Virginia-American]

... evolutionary theory is no more based on hard science then intelligent design...

Then how come standard biology can use evolution theory to make predictions about what will and won't be found when DNA is sequenced (and these predictions have always been verified), and ID is incapable of any predictions, let alone ones that consistently turn out true?

Seriously, how can ID amke a prediction? Isn't the hypothetical designer capable of any design? Evolution restricts the possiblities, and it is only these that are found.