[Rokke]

Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory. This poll asked whether or not Americans thought both theories should be taught in public schools. 69% said yes. You can try to complicate the matter with implied definitions and special status reserved only for what you consider "scientific" theories, but that requires you to read more into this poll than its data supports. Relax. If the theory of evolution is as scientifically sound as you believe it is, than it will easily overwhelm all alternative theories presented to public school students.

[Dimensio]

Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory.

If Intelligent Design is a theory, then I must ask what it predicts, what observations support it and what hypothetical observations would prove it false.

You can try to complicate the matter with implied definitions and special status reserved only for what you consider "scientific" theories, but that requires you to read more into this poll than its data supports.

The problem is that not reading in the context of a scientific theory creates a false equivocation.

Relax. If the theory of evolution is as scientifically sound as you believe it is, than it will easily overwhelm all alternative theories presented to public school students.

The problem is that presenting non-scientific theories as equal to scientific theories requires re-defining science in such a way as to make any rational inquiry impossible.

[RunningWolf]

//Whether either theory is more "scientific" does not change the fact that both consist of speculation and conjecture, and it certainly doesn't imply that either exists without an alternative//

I think you have good points, here Rokke. There seems to be some sort of inference or world view revealed with this heavy emphasis in 'scientific' and that a theory 'rises up to it', Agree?

In a way it is all very circular, for what is science but theory, and sometimes the theory is wrong in several areas.

I will give an example I think we both can relate too. And that was the significance of Bernoulli’s principle in the theory of lift.

This was wrong in that Bernoulli’s principle played not near the role projected in lift generation , and was flat out wrong in the suggestion that the air flows meet back up at the trailing edge same time and same airspeed.

I will google the studies for you, but the vortices's say it all.

So one of my points ( and I ask no one to concur) is that ‘science’ can be wrong and yet Man can make advances on theory that does not necessarily reflect reality.

Wolf

[busstopsindetroit]

"Evolution is a theory. Intelligent design is a theory. "

And personally I believe the theories are not mutually exclusive. However, evolution is based on scientific evidence, while ID is based on philosophy. Leave science to science class and the nature of existence to philosophy class. I see no conflict, and I really don't understand what all the brouhaha is about. If the theory of evolution is correct, one can only assume the design was MORE than intelligent, it was positively ingenious.

Those who believe the Bible is literal, word for word truth, I'm sorry, but your beliefs do not coincide with many proven scientific facts. You have every right to believe them if you choose, but your religious beliefs have nothing to do with science. I may believe that my mother is in heaven, however the existence of heaven or life after death is not something that can or should be taught in science class.