wow! well, it was pretty much not meant to be a serious comment, however, there are a lot of scientific theories that dont get attacked at all whatsoever by the same ppl that attack evolutionary theory: cell theory, theory of relativity, etc. where are the complaints about those? they are also called theories, yet are essentially accepted as fact. this is the same spirt in which evolution is a theory. go find in the bible where the value of pi is said to be 3. and yet i dont hear people attacking the irrational value of pi. why? its because of too much pride that the theory of evolution is attacked. it undermines their idea that people are special, set apart. if man is just another animal that evolved on the earth, then it chips away a little further and the idea that humans are so wonderful. remember all that stink when scientists said the earth wasnt the center of the universe? it all stems from the same issue. look, feel free to believe what you want, but ID is not science, and dont expect it to be taught in a science classroom. like the article says, it doesnt follow scientific theory, which is the very definition of what makes something science. im not averse to ppl learning or teaching whatever crackpot ideas in their churches or places of worship or wherever ISNT my science class. im not going to church and putting stickers on their bibles saying that creationism is only a theory. c'mon. there is a place for everything. separation of church and state is good for RELIGION. its not some evil thing athiests came up with to oppress the religious. its the best thing that ever happened to religion because it ensures everyones rights to their own religious believes, not just some wacky born again prestident, like bush! sorry, had to get that last stab in there. how about my right to the belief that the president sucks? cant you have that belief coexist with yours? etc etc?

Vile wrote:
Fractal: Yes, ID is not science, according to you. However, Evolution is not scientific law, either. It's a theory. This theory may make sense to you, but not everyone trusts it. So, in the interest of tolerance, both will be taught and people can make up their own minds. What's wrong with that? Why is someone "a flaming douchebag" because they refuse to subscribe to your dogma? Are you that insecure in your beliefs that you must denigrate someone who wishes to have their own beliefs co-exist with yours? You do very little to promote the idea of "liberal tolerance." You are a facist like the conservatives. Go sleep with each other. You have a great deal in common.

fractal wrote:
bush is a flaming douchebag.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

This whole "we should teach different ideas" is retarded. There are ideas that life spawns from rotten meat. There are ideas that the US forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor because of an oil embargo. There are ideas that the earth is hollow.

The point is there are ideas for everything, and we don't teach them all. We have some criteria that concepts have to meet to be taught. In science classes, that criteria is the scientific method.

I quote the Intelligent Design article on Wikipedia:

Critics call ID religious dogma repackaged in an effort to return creationism into public school science classrooms and note that ID features notably as part of the campaign known as Teach the Controversy. The National Academy of Sciences and the National Center for Science Education assert that ID is not science, but creationism. While the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection has observable and repeatable facts to support it such as the process of mutations, gene flow, genetic drift, adaptation and speciation through natural selection, the "Intelligent Designer" in ID is neither observable nor repeatable. This violates the scientific requirement of falsifiability. ID violates Occam's Razor by postulating an entity or entities to explain something that may have a simpler and scientifically supportable explanation not involving unobservable help.

ID is *not* science. It should not be taught in a *science* class. Doing so undermines the entire point of science. Bush's complete misunderstanding of this is beyond excuse.

RE: CNN.com - Bush: Schools should teach 'intelligent design' - Aug 2, 2005