It would not be a hard thing to say, but it would be a wrong thing to say. Science is the business of finding natural explanations for the way things are. Intelligent Design posits that there are some things that have no natural explanation. Intelligent Design is the opposite of science.

You may believe that there is Intelligent Design in the universe, and you are welcome to that belief. But it is not science and has no business in the science classroom.

This is important, because teaching children that there is a limit to what science can tell us about the universe stunts their pursuit of scientific solutions to things. Thales, Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Darwin, Einstein all made their discoveries by ignoring what the intelligent design advocates of their times told them to think, and mandkind’s understanding of the universe has advanced as a result.

How hard is it to say that Evolution is one theory and this is how it goes.
Intelligent Design is another theory and this is how it goes.

Why does it have to be one way or the other.

Why can we teach kids that there maybe a more complex
answer here?

I personally don’t believe in Evolution in the way it’s based but that is just me. I don’t care about the poltiics around it, but I do think the kids should be allowed a choice of what they want to think instead of the state forcing on them one way or the other.

Then again, I would not go to a public school today and I am not sending my kids there. Too many liberal values and anti-family values being taught and the quality of education has gone down by quite a bit and it’s all about protecting kids from other kids.

There no logical, scientific way to prove that rain is not Zeus pissing through a sieve. So why isn’t that possibility acknowledged in our science textbooks?

Remember: freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM Zeus-worship!

Oh, by the way, isnt the Deep South the home of most of Pat’s cretinous followers? He just doesnt realize that the hurricanes, etc. WERE God’s punishment. Next, God is going to take out
Virginia Beach…Look out Pat. THe day of justice is upon us, and you, of course.

Using that impeccable logic there surely is a Zeus! Or a Ba’al for that matter. Very helpful rationale — you know, at first I didn’t see the sensibility in that argument. But now I can see it’s handy for any deity you want to believe in. It makes the deity sort of a jerk, but what the hell.

Then why are we teaching evolution? It cannot be either proven or disproven.

Rather than get into all the examples of why this is wrong…let me ask all the supporters of this statement an easy question:

Do you think that the thousands of scientists and teachers who study and teach evolutionary theory every day as “science” (like me) are involved in a vast conspiracy to deceive the world about the definition of “science,” or do you think we are so ignorant that we don’t understand that evolution is not really “science”?

Because if you think I’m teaching people how science works AND I’m studying and teaching what we know about evolution, then I’m either a liar or I’m ignorant. Which is it?

No, he/she God would only be illogical from our greatly inferior view or perspectives (as compared to God). God would be much smarter and wiser than us (well you anyway – sorry, just kidding) and may not be what we call just and humane. God is so removed from or above logic that one can’t possibly “logic” his existence or non-existence. She – God has no need to be logical or fair or humane. Those might all be mere human conceits. I like ‘em, but God may not care.

Dugger

Again I ask: will ID advocates be asking that kids learn how to disprove the existence of God?

The prolem with your test is that evolution cannot be proven/disproven NOW either. Nothing that we do at this point in time can disprove evolution because it takes a leap of faith to make some of the extrapolations needed to make the theory coherent. At this point all we have is the fossil record and a pittance of DNA/chemical evidence with which to draw conclusions from. On the other hand, what technology do you anticipate will allow us to disprove evolution?

The same could be said about ID. Do you know what technology will exist in the 27th century that may/may not be able to disprove ID?

Your questions and tone lead me to the conclusion that you think that I am some kind of creationist/evangalist/ID advocate which is affecting my reasoning. I am none of those things.

I have nothing against, as I said before, kids learning about world religions and creation myths. I’m all for it. It might have been very nice, for example, if kids had learned about Islam before 9/11 thrust the perversion into their faces.

I can agree with you that maybe, in the 27th century, mankind will find a way to create a machine that proves or disproves the existence of a higher being.

However, I can also hypothesize that in the 27th century, mankind will build a machine that allows us to transform into werewolves.

So if we can teach ID in science class based on the possibility that one day we will have the technology to make it a testable science, why can’t we teach Gypsy folklore as well?

Believe otherwise and you might as well believe that rain is caused by Zeus pissing through a sieve.

God can be illogical to your limited, earthly mind but still have purposes beyond your limited (and my limited) understanding. He’s God, remember?

Matty,

I actually agree with you mostly. I do not want anybody’s faith and theory thereof to be a portion of a science text – anyplace. Science needs to be limited to science. Keep politics and religion out of it.

Damek,

Good post.

Dugger, You Can’t Dispprove the Existence of all Powerful Entity, You can Merely Argue Against it

If not, it doesn’t belong in science classes.

Do you also advocate that the Book of Genesis be taught in history class? It is, after all, considered to be a document of human history.

Intelligent design cannot be taught as a science, which at it most basic requires you have something to test and either prove or disprove.

Are we going to be asking these kids to prove or disprove the existence of God? Somehow I doubt that’s what Robertson has in mind.