The "theory" of Intelligent Design attacks Darwinism well enough, but it lacks scientific credibility of its own.

Amusing link.

Seriously, how can you teach one faith without teaching every single faith? Even a "faith" class -- a class dedicated to the way things are based on religion -- taught every day of every school year for all 13 years wouldn't be enough to cover it.

I had some friends who went to my Hebrew school who also went to a Catholic private school, and they were given the option of study hall during the "Religion" class that the Catholic students had to take. Most of them took "Religion", and their experiences were reasonably positive, although they said that no religion class was complete enough to cover everything that the Catholic students needed to know. And if that was at a Catholic school, imagine what it would be like at a secular school where you need to know about every religion, otherwise fairness won't be satisfied?

This'll never work.

Here's the link: http://www.venganza.org/

Both intelligent design and evolution are matters of faith. And both have their own share of scientific evidence and scientific experts supporting them.

Even non-religious scientists and scholars (including those who believe in evolution) will tell you that much of what makes up "science" and scientific fact is actually based upon faith... The 'scientific method,' and deductive reasoning, was not used to develop many of the claims that we now regard as factual. This is a topic that I am not going to go into more now... Regarding the subject of this blog entry: If evolution is going to be taught in public schools, then intelligent design should be taught as well.

Apparently, President Bush isn't the only Republican leader advocating the teaching of so-called `intelligent design' in schools.

According to this story on MSNBC, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has now joined those advocating the evisceration ...

I *so* don't want to wade into this whole evolution/ID debate, but it seems like there's a hair to be split that isn't being addressed by either crowd: the real qualm isn't with "evolutionary theory" per se, but with what might be called the scientific theory of origins.

And there is NO WAY that the "big bang" or any other theory of origins can be "proven" in a laboratory. To say otherwise is only to engage in the sort of "faith-based" posturing scientific types chide creation/ID folks with all the time.

Here's a thought: why not leave the entire discussion of origins out of the classroom all together.

Teacher: "How did life begin? Well, we don't know. And we never will know. It is a mystery locked in the inscrutable past. We can speculate, but all we will have is speculation. The idea that an intelligent being created the universe is no more "provable" than the idea that elements floating in some sort of anti-world suddenly came together in a massive explosion that sent the universe into existence."

I would note that, contrary to what Steve and others have argued, the theory of origins has *no practical value* to science whatsoever.

Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader and supposed videotape diagnostician and surgeon, advocates for the teaching of creationism in science class:Echoing similar comments from President Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said "intelligent design" ...

If you finish my lengthy post below on New York election races (or even if you don't bother) and want some other reading, here is what I and some other writers have been up to recently.

First, what I've been wasting my time on up to...

Sen./Dr. Frist and the ID silliness.