Creationists are still trying to encroach upon science classes. The myths of ID still abound.

There are still vast swatches of people who accept evolution yet also support "teach both sides" and acknowledge ID as a valid scientific alternative. This is a symptom of a greater problem of scientific illiteracy in the US.

ID is 1% teleological argument and 99% anti-evolution arguments. It's not an alternative anything, it's not scientific and it doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis, let alone well established theory.

ID cannot be an alternative to the modern evolutionary synthesis because it explains nothing. The only pro-ID argument is a teleological argument. It does not explain the diversity of life. It proposes no mechanism. There is no model that can be used to produce accurate predictions. It's empty rhetoric. It is utterly scientifically bankrupt. Without at least trying to have these things, without at least trying to have an explanation, it cannot be a replacement theory for the modern synthesis. It's not even offering competition.

ID only borrows certain things from the modern synthesis when it is convenient (inheritance, microevolution, etc). ID produces no science unique to ID. ID proponents cannot even intelligibly explain how ID differs scientifically from the modern synthesis. Go ahead, ask them how ID is different from the modern synthesis, on a scientific level.

Is there anyone that can say otherwise?

religion is for religious ed, science is for science class. That is all I think you can ask of a public education.

Quoting justanothamotha:" religion is for religious ed, science is for science class. That is all I think you can ask of a public education."

this!

i only they would teach religion in public school.

Yea I'm definitely not opposed to teaching creationism in a comparative religion class, but only if they touch on the varieties of creationism, anti-evolution within Christianity and the other religions as well.

Examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution

Quoting Leisurely Duchess:" Yea I'm definitely not opposed to teaching creationism in a comparative religion class, but only if they ... [snip!] ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution"

i believe everyone should know everything
then they can choose how they want. pretty much lol

Kind of sad that none so far are confident enough in their convictions to speak up

I take it as a sign of intellectual bankruptcy

Quoting Leisurely Duchess:" Kind of sad that none so far are confident enough in their convictions to speak up I take it as a sign of intellectual bankruptcy"

lol
i just dont have much o an opinion on it.. .dont know either side really never looked into it. and id rather be educated more on the subject before debating it.

Quoting Leisurely Duchess:" Yea I'm definitely not opposed to teaching creationism in a comparative religion class, but only if they ... [snip!] ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_evolution"

I support that too because I think at least trying to understand the differences & commonalities between various belief systems is good for anyone.

Im having a stupid day .... What does it mean?

Quoting Destiel:" Im having a stupid day .... What does it mean?"

What does what mean?

I think she is asking what ID means - Intelligent Design - AKA Creationism.

Sorry, that's my fault.  

Quoting Leisurely Duchess:" Sorry, that's my fault.  "

It's all your fault. I could have told you that.  

<blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" It's all your fault. I could have told you that.  "</blockquote>




Itll be my fault for being stupid

Quoting Destiel:" <blockquote><b>Quoting justanothamotha:</b>" It's all your fault. I could have told you that.  "</blockquote> Itll be my fault for being stupid"

Hey wait, are we competing for whose fault it is? can it be my fault?