[FostersExport]

I actually see little wrong with what the Dover Board did. Per the article, they aren’t teaching creationism, they are mentioning ID. I have a school-age textbook that mentions that evolution is not universally accepted, citing belief in Genesis-style creation as an alternative. If that’s all that happens, I see little problem.

Heck, maybe creationist arguments should be mentioned more in school, so the science teacher can point out the blatant flaws in most of them!

But the not unfounded suspicion is that there will be mission creep on the part of creationists. First ID gets a mention, then it’s taught as a full-blown competing theory in a science class. That is not acceptable for scientific teaching unless ID can come up with a theory that follows the scientific method.

[furball4paws]

Actually, the science teacher's probably so bad he wouldn't recognize a flaw if it ran up his nostrils.

[wallcrawlr]

But the not unfounded suspicion is that there will be mission creep on the part of creationists.

yeah...thats certainly a part of it.

Oh no...here come the ID'ers!!!

[KMJames]

I actually see little wrong with what the Dover Board did. Per the article, they aren’t teaching creationism, they are mentioning ID.

I also don't know what the flap is about. Many evo's on these threads say that ToE is inadequate or unable to address the issue of "origins" - and yet, there certainly has to be an "origin(s)".

Why should there not be some mention of this limitation of science to understand the natural world?