Michael P. O'Connor

Intelligent design is a religious belief. It is not science. It should not be presented as science.

That Pat Robertson told the citizens of Dover that they shouldn’t depend on God’s help because they turned their backs to Him proves this is, indeed, a religious issue.

As for computer science… well, as Richard Feynman said, “If you’ve got to add ‘science’ to the end of a field, then it ain’t one.”

Evolution is a scientific theory.

Intelligent design is a religious belief. As such, it shouldn’t be presented at all.

Apples and oranges.

Listen to yourself.

Intelligent design is what must be “accepted on faith”. That’s why it can’t be taught as science. It isn’t a acientific theory at all. It’s the based belief in a supernatural being. How can that possibly be evaluated on a scientific basis? It can’t, because it exists solely as a matter of faith.

Should schools also teach that the earth is flat and the center of the universe because that’s what some religions believe?

I respect your faith and religious beliefs. Just don’t try to call them science and teach them to my children.

Oh ya could you anser my question — “must evolution be accepted on faith and not questioned”
I say this becuase the rulling was that you could not say anything that calls into question evolution. And see my original post about what happend when I was in High School.

Show me where they were teaching ID, they just said some people reject evolution and belive in ID

Again in that statement they are sueing over, it does not teach ID, it only says that not every one belives in evolution and some people belive in ID. As I said show me where they are teaching ID, that lawsuit is only over them saying that some people belive in ID, it not teaching ID.

You mean where it says that you may not call into question evolution?

The Judge makes a quick jump and attacks Christians in that ruling, no where in the statement do they talk about the Bible, but the judge says that that statement is telling students to meditate on the Bible. The only book they talk about is that they have in the library a book called “Of People and Pandas” I will admit I don’t know what that book says, but how many HS students are going to study something that is not required for class? The judge says that the statement says that it is a religious statement, how, what religion does it indorse. Heck even some atheists believe in some form of ID, and there are some odd balls out there that think that life on this planet was put here by aliens, how are those disallowed by the statement. And what is wrong with the opt-out part that parents can do. Sex ed has opt-outs, should we stop sex ed, based on the opt-out since “students whose parents do not care to have them exposed to it” (or should I talk about the 9 circuit court ruling on the sex ed to first graders where the parents were not notified about the sex questions)
Also why would the School district need to put in the FAQ about how it is not religion, because every time some one says ID, the left (and the ACLU) screams bloody murder about how Christians are trying to make Christian a state religion, again ID in of itself does not say Christians, heck if you want you can think of FSM for ID. And using letters to the editor that came from outside people, that is just stupid, do does that mean if there is a murder trial and I write a letter to the editor on how I think the person is guilty that is evidence against that person?
Section 4 of the ruling is moot, since it was not taught the question of is ID science or not is not relevant at all, again they were not teaching it.
Also the ruling seam to be also a personal attack on Baksa, Baksa was not the only one on the board. But the ruling Baksa this Baksa that.
The statement now talks about ID, but they have passed their statement as to not limit it to only ID, how is that forcing religion, come up with another explanation, and if it gets a reasonable acceptance then it might be included in the statement.
I will admit the board might have rushed the decision.
I will say it again they were not teaching ID, and any one that thinks they were, is jumping to a conclusion.
And finally where did I get the, ?you can not question evolution? from the ruling see F:1:r

Wow, I stop going to the site and all hell breaks lose! Mike, the issue of ID is very simple. Evolution is a science. That means that it’s created and modified by observations and using the scientific method. It’s by no means complete or even completely correct. ID’s flaw is that it begins with an invalid assumption – some intelligent being started the ball rolling. I think of ID as a hypothesis to evolution, however it cannot be proven (unless you can prove …or disprove… that there’s an intelligent being). So since it’s a hypothesis that cannot be proved in a scientific way, ID is not science. That is the reason why ID should not be replacing evolution as a study of science. That said, I do believe that ID should be taught in school as a means to open peoples minds to other possibilities – I’m all open for that (unlike some ID people that don’t want evolution taught, bit of an expected hypocritical double standard there). In either case, I think this is a massive embarassment. This is yet another example of the world laughing at us while we’re arguing about religion and ‘Merry Christmas’ while they’re funding research and development. Unfortunately, it seems that those people that are pushing these types of ideas would rather be morally right while this country goes down the drain. After all, don’t we all get rewarded in heaven? I’d rather focus on the here and now. It’s great that there’s debate about other views, but back it up with science. I don’t see how they can prove that there was an intelligent being that created all this without discussing existance of god… Unless they found a really cool huge skeleton of a bearded white guy (because like the bible pictures show, most of the planet’s humans are bearded white men), there’s really no discussion =]

Seems like we’re in agreement. Unfortunately thats not what they want. They want to teach ID *instead* of evolution. In the grand view of things, this country has to teach things that are going to be judged by the whole world. That’s the core of the problem – people want to replace teaching evolution in the classroom with ID and that is wrong. Also I think transferring credits from ID to science should not be allowed, since ID is not science.

Either way ID has no scientific basis, unlike Darwin’s theory. Agreed that it’s not complete, however globally, it’s a set standard. Math, physics, and quantum mechanics aren’t “completed” yet, it’s all a growing field. I agree that students should be exposed to alternative ideas, but ones that are based on scientific principles, not religious overtones.