"But under no circumstances may it be taught in science class, since scientists unanimously agree it is NOT science."
That is a falsehood. I know many scientists that would disagree with you. So, you cannot say "unanimously."
Because you think ID is equivalent to a myth does not make it so. If one does not want to call ID a "scientific" theory then they should at least have the sense to realize it is an alternative explanation. You evoluntionary proponents are just like religious zealots when it comes to propping up your current paridigm. If evolutionary theory cannot stand a little competetion from something as inocuous and vague a ID, then it must not be so great a theory.
"Because you think ID is equivalent to a myth does not make it so."
And because YOU think evolution is a cultic belief does not make it so.
See how that works?
"That is a falsehood."
Well I have all the scientific literature on my side, please cite your sources... "Scientists I know" is a little too suspect.
And I QUOTE from the National Academy of Sciences publication on view of Science adn Creationism:
"Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."
Besides this, do a quick search on the big peer reviewed journals for biology, Nature and Science should do nicely. Count how many hits you get for evolution, abotu 2000... Count how many are disputing evolution... 0. Now do a search for articles supporting ID... NONE, ZERO.
As I said before, let us hear your sources now...
"You evoluntionary proponents are just like religious zealots"
Not really - we tend to base our arguments on observed fact, rather than stories written (and revised multiple times) in some old book.
I mean, honestly - the only thing Creationists can use in an argument is "Well, it's what's written in this old book.", an argument that doesn't do much good in a discussion of fact.
I'm confused. Does this mean that we should now consider that global warming is really not "created" by "intelligence" ( tongue in cheek ) and in fact, relates more likely to natural events only, and should not be taught in schools?
I am continuously amazed that, lacking any substantial evidence to support ID, ID proponents invariably, and without fail, resort to attacking evolution and those that know evolution as fact. When you have no case, attack and distract to the point your opponent must defend his/herself thereby completely fogging over the real issue.
Uh, huh. ID sure stands on its own merits, don't it?
AMEN!
That is a falsehood. I know many scientists that would disagree with you. So, you cannot say "unanimously."
Nobel laureate Brian Josephson believes in spoon benders. Nobel laureate Linus Pauling spent the last part of his life claiming that megadoses of vitamin C cures just about everything. William Crookes spent the last part of his life pushing spiritualist claptrap. Despite that, I have to say that there's no evidence that the spoon benders are anything but frauds, that vitamin C doesn't do all that Pauling claimed, and that spiritualism is pure Barbra Streisand.
If one does not want to call ID a "scientific" theory then they should at least have the sense to realize it is an alternative explanation.
Agreed...but ID has no predictive utility, hence it's not science. ID consists of looking at something, saying "I can't think of any way this could have happened," and inferring that it's the result of Go^H^Han intelligent designer. The creation myth at the beginning of Watership Down is an "alternative explanation," but that doesn't mean it should be taught in science class.