I think the problem with evolution is not so much what is taught in schools, but the fact that no other explanation is permitted to even be considered. Most of my doubts about Evolution come from the fact that its supporters are terrified that someone may scientifically consider another alternative.
Develop a competing scientific theory that fits the evidence, and it will be considered. "An unknown advanced entity did something at some point in the past" does not qualify.
For any other explanation to be considered, it must first pass scientific rigor. What the creationists and IDers want is for their pet beliefs to be called science without having to actually do any science to support them. It's basically affirmative action for religion.
Not quite. "Intelligent Design" was launched by the Discovery Institute (DI) with the hope that it would become a broad-based movement in conservative circles, especially in "family-values" organizations. But despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent promoting ID--about $35 million from DI--over the last 10 years, ID has never developed a solid constituency. Today ID is a notion increasingly recognized as vacuous by Christian believers.
Preachers know that sermons like, "The Intelligent Designer loves you"; "Accept 'irreducible complexity' into your heart" do not bring in parishioners. Unless ID moves into the churches, its acceptance in the Christian community is doomed. Churches are erected to the worship of God, not to an 'intelligent designer'. An even bigger problem is that ID does "not save souls".
Many preachers consider that ID has muddied the waters from the simple notions of creationism, Noah's Flood, and Biblical inerrancy. The main creationist groups, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis, have never embraced 'intelligent design'. They see that ID diverts questions about Noah's Flood-- which was impossible to justify on scientific grounds-- to the "God issue", but they are unhappy that ID has never addressed moral values and skirts the issue of of who the "Grand Designer" is.
After Kitzmiller, the Discovery Institute could only whimper, claiming they never "really" believed ID should be in schools. This directly contradicted their own "Wedge Document." And the expert testimony sponsored by DI was caught in several contradictions at the trial, which Judge Jones pointed out. Even the Thomas Moore Center--the legal counsel engaged "to defeat the ACLU" ---was appalled by DI undermining their legal filings. So 'intelligent design' lost face big time with potential backers. DI has tried to reply with ad hominem attacks on Judge Jones, with a campaign to "teach the controversy", with attempts to brand critics as "liberal elites", but these attempts have backfired.
Well put.
You have a false premis. Supporter are not terrified that someone may SCIENTIFICALLY consider another alternative. We welcome that. What we detest is idiots parading religion as science and posting falsehoods in order to push their agenda.
Such as......?
The only alternative I hear is Creationism or the Theory that the Earth is riding on the back of a huge turtle, both of which are "matters of faith".