Because once people realized how little prof. there is to evolution and how much there is for intelligent design they will loss many of there converts to the reglion of Leftism.

Robert

more innane babbling from the ludicrous left...

this all goes to their core beliefs though, if you think about it.

You see, radicle leftists prey upon the littleman, and everything in their power to keep him down, in order to stay in power.

So logically, they will do everything they can to prevent the education of future generations, and work hard to brainwash them into idiots.

The only way a person can get educated is by observing different view points and examining them for the truth of their argument, if one only has one view, they cannot do this, so this move from the left is not only expected, but in keeping with their overall strategy, and is indeed an integral part.

"If I was a hysterical conservative - as hysterical as the angry left - I'd demand that the extreme left-wing stop its censorship and allow free and open debate in our nation's schools."

Why do have to be "hysterical" to believe that discussions of religion and creationism do not deserve to be censored in our schools, Johnathan?

It is not about religion! Let me repeat it is not about religion! Intelligent design doesn't say Allah or Jesus or any one religion view of GOD is simple says that looking at things there is no way that thinks like eye's could develop by accident and require intelligence for them to be created.

RObert

Actually Intelligent Design, though frequently used in conjunction with the word "creationism" is not creationism at all. ID is a theory that is based on the idea that there are some structures in nature that are simply too complex to have been produced by natural selection--there are some structures that are irreducibly complex, for example, the blood-clotting mechanism. These discoveries have come as a result of microbiology and biochemistry: technology unavailable when Darwin proposed his theory, and technology that has now allowed us to look far deeper into the cell, and far closer at evolution.

There is much at stake with allowing alternative theories to be taught in school alongside evolution. Darwinian theory has long become the mainstay of secular humanism, as at its core, Darwinism postulates that humans are mere accidents of evolution. To let go of the idea that evolution is not the end all and be all of the animal world would be tantamount to admitting that what science has adopted as religion is not only wrong, but that it may possibly yield to what secularists fear most: God.

I have always been a firm believer in the theory of evolution and I still am. Creationism and Intelligent Design are just different stanzas of the same song as far as I can see. And there is absolutely no proof that that "theory" is correct.

Having said that, I say that both sides of the story should be presented. Science should never be afraid of a challenge - that is the foundation of science and should be welcomed. In any scientific methods I know, evolution will win out purely on logic.

Intelligent Design, Creationism, whatever the buzzword is today, relies on the existence of some intelligence other than humans, which, no matter how hard people have tried, has never been proved. Hence the concept of "faith" which is believing in something and not requiring any proof at all.

That is where some scientific types have a problem - they fear that competing "theories" will be presented with certain assumptions not having been adequately proved. But they should welcome the scientific examination of these ideas, simply because they must lose based on logic and all the tools of science.

Personally, I don't think it much matters which one is right - it ain't gonna make one bit of difference to me. YMMV.

E. M. Zanotti,

Said what I ment much better then I could have.

Rev Scar,

Look into the evidence against evolution. It's much more prevelent then you might think and explains why lefties are so upset over the idea that the flaws of their pet religious theory will be taught. They'll loose based on logic if the flaws are taught.

I college I took a class on logical fallacies. Right after that, I read a book called Scientists confront Creationism. It was so riddled with logical fallacies and no real arguements it would have been funny if people didn't take it so seriously.

Personally, I think both sides should be taught. Strengths and weaknesses. After all, no one was truly there, so both theories take faith.

The reasonable evidence for ID is vastly superior to that of evolution, and based on logic alone, ID wins out every time, hands down.

That being said, I think it is necessary to clear up what ID really is. Intelligent Design is a philisophical, Creationism-rooted, proof of God's existence, that merely defines the LOGICAL NECESSITY of a vaguely described super-entity. The idea being that a REASONABLE PERSON, after being exposed to the argument, would agree on God's existence, and is one often thought up by "your average joe."

The theory makes no bones about religion of any sort, and is purely logical, with more and more astounding physical evidence being uncovered almost constantly (althought to be used in the proof one must already accept it on purely logical grounds).

If someone accepts that logic is a good exercise of the mind, then kids should be taught ID on that alone, let them work through the problems themselves in a logical manner.

That aside, it is necessary to expose kids to different views on different subjects, and ID is one of the ideas more readily grasped, and is MUCH less controversial than everybody is trying to paint it as.

That being said, i think it is something that should be covered alongside evolution at the end of the year, as a unit, and done as something fun, where kids, or groups of kids can have discussions and do presentations of their own ideas trying to prove their position.

Look into the evidence against evolution.

The only "evidence" I've seen that says the theory of evolution has flaws has all come from those in the Creationist and/or Intelligent Design crowd. And their arguments are not based on the Scientific Method that I have been trained to use to determine which hypothesis is more likely to be true. ID and Creationism both rely on some supreme being/otherworldly intelligence to have been the designer of the universe. Never has a shred of evidence been provided and when closely questioned, it always boils down to, "you just have to believe..." I do not find that sort of rhetoric surrounding the theory of evolution, just citation after citation of observations. Even before the evolutionists understood or even knew about DNA, they predicted its existence - that's pretty powerful for a flawed science.

They'll loose based on logic if the flaws are taught.

I suppose it is possible and I agree that those without firm foundations in the field of science are the ones who are afraid to hold up the theory of evolution - and the others like ID - to close scrutiny. Their world would be turned upside down if science somehow validated ID or invalidated evolution.

I college I took a class on logical fallacies.

I am also studied in logical fallacies. Here is a great reference on the subject, BTW.

Right after that, I read a book called Scientists confront Creationism. It was so riddled with logical fallacies and no real arguements it would have been funny if people didn't take it so seriously.

Never heard of that book, but I would bet it is sponsored/written or in some sense the output of some religious faction masquerading as science.

Personally, I think both sides should be taught. Strengths and weaknesses. After all, no one was truly there, so both theories take faith.

I was with you until your last phrase. Science does not involve faith - science eschews "faith" as a logical method of scientific proof. Religion requires faith and not only requires no proof, but actually frowns on attempts at proof of the existence of a God as showing insufficient faith. I do, however, agree that both those of religious backgrounds and atheistic scientists should not fear examination, study, and learning about this or any subject. Knowledge is ALWAYS power.

The left's oposition to this is the micro to the macro that they don't want debate in the public square. If one were to make the argument that ONLY Christianity or Islam or Buddhism should be explored in educational environments, they'd be just as full of fear and as unwilling to entertain unfamiliar ideas as your run of the mill frothing mad religion/God hating moveon.never activist. A study of history, current events, and the human condition that doesn't involve discussion of prevalent religious movements is inherently weak and incomplete. There is also a heafty helping of projection in their fear of such discussions. They've been using this country's educational institutions to indoctrinate young people into leftist groupthink for decades. Debate itself presents alternatives that threaten power they possess.

RS,

Are we talking micro or macro evolution? All creationists I know believe that micro evolution happens. It's when you try to say that because a moth can change color that a dog can become a cat that you loose us.

As to that book, it was written by evolutionists supposedly tearing down the arguements against evolution put out by creationists. After reading that book, I thought to myself, "If that's the best they can do, I will never believe them."

Actually, most scientists recognize that Darwinian Evolution has flaws. Those flaws are, however, not addressed readily. It is no secret that microevolution, or the slow change of organisms as a result of natural selection and adaptation, occurs in nature. We have incredible examples. Macroevolution, however, is not as well-substantiated. Macroevolution, however, the slow change of one species into another (fish into birds, for example) is not well-substantiated. Much of it is based on a hypothetical fossil record which the real fossil record seems to contradict. Phenomenons such as the Cambrian Explosion (a short period of time in which most of the current phyla of animal appeared without any apparent divergence in their evolutionary chain--in other words, all of a sudden, a bunch of differnt kinds of animals appeared, but didn't evolve out of any specific gene line) work against modern Darwinism.

Intelligent Design is based on a phenomenon called Irreducible Complexity. This particular phenomenon occurs when a structure appears in nature that could not possibly have evolved through natural selection. When one component of the complex structure is removed, the structure no longer functions--like a mousetrap. A mousetrap is a very intricite system, however, when any one component is removed, the system doesn't function. These structures could not have evolved because to evolve means to start as a rudimentary system and gradually become more refined as generations are born. These structures would have appeared just the way they were. Darwin himself said that if any of these structures could be located in nature, it would show that his theory was innacurate. Some of these structures have been located. You don't have to simply believe. You can observe and you can test.

It is no secret that the universe remarkably well ordered. There is much to marvel at. One need only to look at the Golden Ratio's appearance in nature to understand that there is much order. While some scientists may believe that their work has little to do with faith, most would tell you that the deeper they delve into the mysteries of the universe, the greater the possibility of "something much bigger" out there becomes greater and greater.

All science has possible implications on society. Darwinism made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, according to Richard Dawkins, as at its logical conclusion, Darwinism postulates that human beings are merely the accidental result of undirected evolution. We are merely the most evolved thing at this moment in time. That is a very empty belief to hold. The implications on society of Darwinism are quite widespread, but the evidence is mounting that there is a potential solution.

There are many alternate theories, and ID may not prove, in the long run, to be good science, but in the past much of what we once believed about our universe ended up being wrong. Einstein once believed that nuclear fission was impossible, and we do it every day. Steven Hawinking has now proposed that Einstein's theory of relativity may too be wrong, yet we have taught it as the truth for ages. Science only succeeds because we are will to question the status quo, and explore the possibilites presented by our questions. Without it, science would be stagnant.

Darwinism is no different. Although ID may not be ready to be taught as a diametric opposite of Darwinism, the idea that Darwinism may not be wholly correct is one that should be discussed in science classrooms. Students deserve to know that this is a theory that continues to be tested, and that it is not, essentially, without fault. They should be taught this simply because it encourages them to think about the possibilites, and explore the options--the scientific method. To shut down questioning about a particular theory simply because a contingent in this country fears that it might prove God's existence, in a way, is contrary to both the nature and the spirit of science itself.

And there is no rule about proving God's existence not being a part of science. It is, instead, the ultimate question.