'intelligent design'

Bush: Schools should teach \'intelligent design\'

What the hell happened to the separation of church and state; the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? I know I would consider children in a public school a compulsory audience and the classroom government administered institution.

Does this seem like another impudent stance by Bush and completely unconstitutional to anyone else?

Oh please, your living in a one party system disguised as a two one, bush can do whatever he wants, he's already probed this

Hmm . . . it doesn't seem like a sound scientific theory, so I don't think it should be taught in schools. It would be like saying, "Maybe there are aliens out there. It is a big universe, you know." You just don't teach that. You teach what you know, and there is a lot of information regarding evolution. To say that we are "too complex" for evolution . . . do they know how many years creatures have existed on this planet? With that kind of time, it makes sense how we got here. Too complex my a** . . .

That said, I have to say, yeah, it looks like he's just trying to do whatever he pleases. And it would seem unconstitutional if schools were forced to teach that stuff. You teach what you know - not flimsy, backwater theories that have no scientific backing.

Intelligent design...in other words, Creation Science.

The Constitution states that the government shall not make an establishment of religion.

A supernatural God cannot be proven nor disproven by natural means.

I've seen much about the science behind "Creation Science" and there are many valid points.

Secular humanism is taught in the schools. Why should the schools have the right to teach theories which inch God out, but not theories that would point to there being a God?

In science classes, I agree that science should be taught.

This country was established to have freedom "OF" religion not freedom "FROM" religion.

And, President Bush is backing up what the people who voted for him want!

They should teach science in the science classes. Why should one be opposed to science if it points to a possible creation as opposed to evolution? Aren't school to teach students to be critical thinkers and not to swallow all the bull s*** fed to them?

but the sneeky thing about intelligent design is that it doesnt say the creator did tis, it says a designer did, by passing all the rules, it claims the designer did this, not the worl of a god or other entity, scientists are in uproar over this as they go around telling the community that darwinism is wrong and that even the scientists say its wrong, which is complete rubbish.

It is NOT a scientific theory, therefore it should not be taught in science classes.

Do people go around teaching evolution in religion classes?

Keep the intelligent design to religion and philosophy classes, keep the science in science classes.

And whatever it may be called, 'creation science' is not science.

Kudos Tino...it is scary what can be deliberately misinterpreted by deceptive name.

Why isn't science "science" if it happens to point to creation and/or an intelligent designer?

We should at least include in science class the science which would seem to contradict the theory of evolution.

When I was in my high school science class, I viewed evolution as a theory alone. That is how I learned it anyway. I still couldn't logically construct how it happened. Now evolution has evolved (sic) into not theory but fact in the minds of the majority.

Scientific theories have particular characteristics that make them scientific theories. Some of the characteristics:
1. They are testable.
2. They are falsifiable (i.e. logically negatable)
3. They make specific predictions that are tested using empirical measurements.
4. It is a set of statements about the causal relationships between abstract variables.
..etc.



And this would be what?



Well it is a theory, but it's not "just a theory", it's a scientific theory, which has the characteristics I mentioned.

ah yes thank god for the scientific method. In that article someone mentions that it would have a better context in a philosophical lecture in social studies. I can agree with that. It's like teaching folklore. And i don't understand why someone more intelligent would have to have created the world for it to be so complex. That just seems like bulls*** because all the understanding of everything we have comes from observing natural phenomena. Yeah so the branches of trees can be described by a fractal function or whatever. That makes sense when we learned things from observing our environment right?

Another thing that pisses me off is people calling reproduction a miracle. "Oh that baby's such a miracle!" No it's not, it's proliferation of your species. Jesus f***ing christ! Oh and to the person that said we're in a one party system, yes we are. let's hope to god bush doesn't convince congress and everyone else to do away with that thing that says presidents can only hold two consecutive terms. Although even if he doesn't there's a very real possibility of one of his goons getting elected next time if we don't wisen up and realize that gee, maybe we oughtta elect someone without an agenda like his (esp. him trying to use his religion to justify policies, there is supposed to be NO place for that in our government and here it is... )

Where I learned about the intelligent design argument was in a philosophy class, and I think that's entirely appropriate.

Apparently I am lucky to be in California...we were taught nothing BUT evolution in the public schooling system and didn't address intelligentdesign until (as tino mentioned) Philosophy in college. I couldn't even imagine someone trying to feed me impractical, ideological notions in a science class! Even as a 9 year old I would have had serious reservations about trusting it.

Voltaire said it : what is common sense in one place may not be so common in another one.

Are you sure you are not referring to "Le sens commun n'est pas si commun"...or "Common sense is not so common"?

Guess...