[Egregious Philbin]

I am willing to have evolution taught as an "evolving concept" as long as the evolving concepts of ID are presented as well. That's all we ask. We want a free and open debate.

You suggest that the theory of evolution is like intelligent design. As I said in my earlier post, I would say they are two completely different things, from two different fields, one of which is nonscientific. A free and open debate is fine, but I think of it in terms of what I said above - you mean a debate about teaching religion in science class?

[Aquinasfan]

A free and open debate is fine, but I think of it in terms of what I said above - you mean a debate about teaching religion in science class?

The idea that blind material forces built up the various creatures that we see around us is more of a speculative, philosophical position than a position arising from empirical data. The idea makes claims regarding the ultimate nature of reality. As such, the idea transcends the bounds of science and enters the realm of metaphysics, as does intelligent design.

The explanatory power of these metaphysical theories can be tested against what we observe in nature. From what I've read, the evidence supports ID theory better than evolutionary theory. The subject should be open to rigorous debate, not a one-sided "debate."

Regardless, the debate is already over. The general public never believed Darwin's theory anyway. The news will reach scientists last. Too many careers have been invested in Darwinism to turn the project around.