People who start gassing on about the "seperation of church and state" need to research where that phrase comes from and IT isn't the constitution! It comes from a letter written by Thomas jefferson, regardless of Jeffersons statis as a founding father, seperation of church and state does NOT exist in americas founding documents. What the constitution SAYS is this......congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech etc etc etc.....no mention of seperation there so an argument based on seperation is wrong.....find a new argument. Also, if you refuse to teach ALL concepts regarding the creation of our universe you don't teach ANY views since it can be argued that evolution (darwinsim) HAS morphed into a type of religion secular humanism that teachs the pseudo religious doctrine of survival of the fittest.

Anyone ever hear of seperation of church and state? Excuse me if I'm wrong but a public school is ran by the state is it not? Last I heard intelligent design was an idea of the church. Want your children to learn intelligent design? Take them to private school, can't afford private school? Teach them yourselves, case closed.

not really. thats why they have tests and other shit. as long that your 2 points above leagely retarded you can get in and PASS perry high skoal. lol

Eliminating Intelligent Design from the school curriculum is selective education and indoctrination. Students go to school to learn about everything, not limited to learn about some things. Give the students the tools to become free thinkers and make them useful for the society, not simple meek lemmings which follow the agenda of political or social groups. Do we teach our kids the good and bad of socialism, the good and bad of communism, the good and bad of dictatorships? Why not teach them the good and bad of evolution and the good and bad of Creationism? Selective education is pure indoctrination, something very much anti American.

To put evolution or intelligent design into play in education is an extremely bad idea. There is a vast body of knowledge that has been accumulated over decades concerning evolution. An entire theory has grown up concerning it much as other scientific theories such as gravity, relativity, thermodynamics and other similar disciplines. We know that it works in nature as we see viruses and diseases mutate and evolve into something different every year!

Research into the origin of the species is much more difficult, but the work continues. The new breakthroughs in DNA research and genetics might answer more questions.

Where is the evidence for Intelligent Design? It may be summed up in this statement: "Some things are so irreducibly complex, that they must have been made by an outside force." O.k., if you agree with that, then you must show proof--not conclusions. If you are going to teach in it a philosophy or comparative religion class, that's fine. You cannot teach it as a science. It cannot be proven or not proven by the scientific method! It is based upon faith.

Very important issue. But a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Intelligent Design might be a theory, but unlike the theory of evolution it is not a scientific theory. That is a big difference. One is for science because it can be tested, observed and measured and the other is for philosophy or religions class because it relies on faith, introspection and can not be tested.

While intelligent design is not completely provable I still find that because it, like evolution, is a theory. So all that means is that it is a widely excepted idea. It does not mean that intelligent design is completely provable, but if you honestly think about it neither is evolution. I mean yeah, microevolution is provable, but that is merely the evolution of organisms that are not visible by the naked eye. Macroevolution on the other hand is not even close to being proven. Mainly because macroevolution is the evolution of organisms such as humans, but we, as a society, have yet to find any transitional organisms or any large organisms that have mutated or evolved over the years. I mean there have been animals that have adapted to their environments but they have not actually mutated into a new species. Therefore while neither theory is provable I think that it would be wise to still teach students both, because if they have the knowledge of sides then they can decide what they believe in for themselves. Which basically boils down to human rights, we, as a society should not have the right to stifle a human beings knowledge because we would therefore be stifling their right to decide on what they believe.

Sadly, 81,783 square miles of America (again) became noticeably stupider yesterday, when the Kansas Bored Of Education voted 6-4 to implement new public-school science standards in an attempt to cast doubt on the factual basis of evolution (all six voters who favored the change are die-hard ID Republicans). Kansas has never been anyone's idea of an intellectual wellspring, but this ruling will bring nothing but scorn and ridicule to the state (which I personally grasp with my two good opposable thumbs), not to mention a sizeable loss of business investment. The Jayhawk State has opened the floodgates of nuttiness, and will now HAVE to teach ALL creationist mythologies (like the Raelian theory of extraterrestial cloning, the Native American idea of the Earth forming on the back of a water-logged turtle, or that humans came about from the blood droplets of the Babylonian god Kingu, etc.) to keep from cheesing off a hundred different cultural ideals (after all, fair is fair, as there are more than just two origin explanations). And there's the highlight of the situation: "intelligent design" DOES NOT belong in a science classroom!! ID proponents have never had a peer-reviewed article published on the topic; they conduct no experiments to prove or disprove their theories; it can't be modeled mathematically; there are NO research laboratories investigating it; and useful predictions fly out the window under its guise. Creationists say they just want to provide objective balance to science: let's see how long their keen interest in public education remains when biologists ask to come into their Sunday School classes and teach evolution (can't ya just hear the hemming and sputtering now?). Keep the ID "debate" where it should be: in philosophy classrooms.

This issue is a national disgrace. There are thousands of books on evolution based on Scientific fact and years of hard research. There are also quite a few books about creationism based on biased scientific fact and a document written 2000 years ago by people who thought that the earth was flat and that it was created five thousand years previously by an all powerful superbeing who was basically a huge "one of us". Which theory should be tought in school? Hmmmmmmm....

Ok people, What do Creationists believe? That in the beginning there is God? And what do Evolutionist believe? That in the beginning there was dirt? Have Creationist been there, 6000 years ago, when the Earth was created by God? Do we have a witness? No. Have Evolutionist been there , 4.6 billion years ago, when the Earth appeared? Do we have a witness? No. Do both sides have reasonable theories? Yes they do... So, please don't try to argue that one is a religious point of view and the other is scientific! Both sides BELIEVE in what ever they do, so the word "religion" means a strong belief, both sides do strongly belief! So PLEASE, stop saying that it's religion vs. science! It is not fair that people who reject the evolutionist theory have to pay for evolution to be taught in school, but all pay, evolutionists need creationists' money to spread their "religion" of Evolution.... so don't say that creationism should be taught in private schools! I believe children have a right to choose what to believe, so the governments responsibility to let schools give both views so kids would decide what to believe! also, i agree with DenverJuusan on that if they don't want to teach both then they should not teach any of the theories!

This argument is truly insane. Creationism is based purely on religious sentiment and not on any sort of science. Is it a mere coincidence that all of those who advocate inteligent design are fundamentalist christians? The reason western civilisation has advanced so far is that we ditched this kind of stuff five hundred years ago. Bush, his followers and anyone else who believes that creationism should be taught in public schools are insane; not merely wrong, but seriously deluded by their faith.

Personally, I think Evolution is based on scientific findings and Intelligent Design is based on religious beliefs. Teach Evolution in public school science classes and teach Intelligent Design in private religious institutions. Simple as that.

I agree with jirai.

Going to have to agree with Beelzebub on this issue. Creationism doesn't fit in the ciriculum of any class at the high school I went to. Would you put it in with biology (along with evolution)? That would not make any sense because creationism has not scientific backing (please spare me the christian science). We need to stop worrying about petty crap like this and start focusing on the basic subjects so that our children wont grow up to be stupid.

should be the standard, but since we've gone back about 50 years in intelligent thought, i guess we have to suffer this argument. it's a shame. i dont understand why churches/relgious folks can't teach this to their kids on their own, and why they expect a public institution to do so. Creationism should be kept out of science class, as religion is not science. School district, public schools, should set up religious studies courses, and allow parent to sign their kids up...maybe have the class before or after school, if they are too busy and self-involved to teach their kids about their own religious beliefs. but have faith folks. Bush will one day be gone and all of these religious zealots will be pushed back underneath their southern and mid-western rocks, like the trolls they are.

Since creationism is a religious belief, and since intelligent design is the creationist doublespeak for creationism, and since creationism is religion, and since the First Amendment guarantees the right to be free from state-sponsored religion, the teaching of creationism should not be allowed in public schools. QED

Goneaway, excellent piece of writing. I wish you guys could read a paper I wrote a while back (A+ I might add) on why Christians should argue and one of my main pionts in why Christians should argue is so people are not fed biased misinformed material from those such as secular elite sources. I hope that book stays on the shelf, if Christians do not fight the secular worldview, then we may end up living in a deluded world.

First off, the Grand Canyon situation is just another example on how the religion of Chrisitianity is falling under attack. We've seen this type of thing happen dozens of times before and it's about time that Chrisitans take a stand. In any case, if children will have to be force fed the theory of evolution, which makes very little sense anyway, they should also be able to learn the Creationist theory. Kudos to GoneAway for your outstanding analysis!!

Both scientific scholars and bible pushers have it wrong. The Grand Canyon was actually created only 400 years ago by some guy named Fred. He made it from cheese. It took him 4 days. And if you dare take my book off the shelves and don't let me put up a second plaque alongside yours, I'll whine about censorship and how threatened you must be.

I'm sorry, I do not think nor can I ever believe that anything as complex as this earth and all that is in it could come about by sheer accident. Nope, just does not compute. GoneAway - absolutely excellent piece - my hat is off to you! And Eschew Obfuscation you are a peace-keeping genius. Somebody give Bush his phone number.

I'd be curious to hear what others think about this article from Shepherd Express - should this Christian friendly version of the Grand Canyon be taught as an alternative to what conventional science says? Here's the blurb: Look for national parks' geology to be written more in the image of creationists over the next four years in the continuing effort to create 'faith-based parks.' An ongoing dispute at Grand Canyon National Park bookstores is that Grand Canyon, a Different View was ordered to stay on the bookshelves by top NPS brass. The book says that the Grand Canyon is 4,500 years old and was formed by Noah's flood. Conventional scientific wisdom has the canyon more around 6 million years old, still rather young compared to the age of the Earth. Despite protests from scientists and the Grand Canyon Park superintendent, the book has stayed on the shelves. The Bush administration said it would review the policy, but the review hasn't even been started since the February complaint. NPS has also ordered bronze plaques with verses from Psalms placed at canyon overlooks, truly emphasizing what a Judeo-Christian religious experience the view can be.

Teach both, propose the most intelligent cases possible for each, include the basic logical flaw characteristic in both theories, and note that millions of people believe each theory and warn them that people don't argue about this in polite company. What's so tough about that?

I think it should be taught in a manner as to not sway someone's opinion. I mean, the theory should be taught...and both arguements should be talked about. Approach it as a historical debate of sorts.

I think this is an important issue in public schools. Arguments against evolutionary theory should be mandatory in the curriculum, seeing as so many scientists have differing opinions about the origins of man, regardless of religious overtones. The ACLU brought a case against a public school teacher in 2000 for merely presenting arguments that would challenge evolutionary theory on a scientific level (a la Darwin's Black Box). One need not open up a Bible to exploit problems with evolutionary faith. Open discussion should be allowed, but today's public school curriculums do not call for it.

Biggest non-story in the history of education. Evolution? Creationism? These kids cannot write a five-paragraph essay or construct an abstract argument. Math and science scores do not suggest that High School is a proper forum for this issue. Can everybody stop trying to use schools as a political and philosophical lever? Memo to parents- your kids are illiterate, having sex, and doing drugs. Teach them to read and write BEFORE grand philosophical/theologoical/scientific discussions. You can't teach the theory of relativity to middle-schoolers. . . dump your crusades, all of you.

I think equal time is reasonable. Notice I said EQUAL. In a science class, its reasonable to present several different scenarios and allow the students to believe what they will. Excluding intelligent design completely is like ignoring the pink elephant in the middle of the living room-all the kids know what you're not saying.

I went to a private Christian school where they taught the theory of creationism. They don't treat it as a hypothesis, rather it is law! Strange considering the fact that they were never there to actually observe what happened. Their justification is that the Earth has changed dramatically over the past 6,000 years; for example to them the Grand Canyon was not created over millions of years but over the time span of 2 years. They know the Earth is this old based on old Jewish geneaological records. To me it all sounds kind of flimsy. Despite the huge gaps in evolutionary theory, I would say that it offers a good hypothesis concerning the origins of man. It doesn't mean that there is no God, it just means that the Earth wasn't created in 7 days. Really a close reading of the first chapter of Genesis could describe the creation of the universe. Indeed, the earth wasn't created until Days 4 and 5. The Earth is app. 4 billion years old as opposed to the universe, which is about 12 billion years old. The point is that we can't be absolutists when interpreting writings, especially ancient ones. I thought that this was a debate we should have taken of a long time ago. Evolution isn't law, it is theory, indeed a hypothesis that should be taught in the schools as an alternate explanation of the origins of man. No religious overtones need apply.

I know I've posted multiple times regarding the issue of Evolution and teaching the subject in our public schools, but a very important issue has been brought to my attention which I feel needs to be addressed. The state of Missouri has proposed a bill (House Bill No. 911, Missouri Standard Science Act, pre-filed Dec. 19, 2003) which states that both Evolution and Intelligent Design be given equal treatment in Missouri public elementary and secondary schools. Intelligent Design, a loosely-veiled attempt at making religion scientific-sounding, lacks any scientific basis (science relies on experiments and evidence, which intelligent design lacks. Arguments for intelligent design are based on trying to prove evolution wrong, as in if not A, then B, which is faulty in that 1) many of their arguments to prove evolution (A) wrong is invalid, and 2) they fail to take into account other possible outcomes (as in, If not A, then B, or C, or possibly D, C or D being other religious beliefs)) and therefore should NOT be taught in a science class. The bill lists SEVERAL false claims (i.e., The lack of significant present-day observable changes in species due to random variation, mutation, natural selection, adaptation, segregation, or other naturalistic mechanisms implies intelligence as the cause for all original species --many significant changes, esp. in unicellular organisms, have been observed within a few days time; [Biological Evolution] philosophically demands only naturalistic causes and denies the operation of any intelligence, supernatural event, God or theistic figure in the initial or subsequent development of life . . .in no instance has Evolution claimed the non-existence of any theistic figure; as no scientific proof for evolution has arisen regarding the work of a supernatural being, supernatural causes are not incorporated into the theory. Science is based on evidencethat which you cannot provide evidence for is not a matter of science); even the definitions presented in the bill are wrong (Hypothesis, a scientific theory reflecting a minority of scientific opinion which may lack acceptance because it is a new idea, contains faulty logic, lacks supporting data, has significant amounts of conflicting data, or is philosophically unpopular. 1) A hypothesis is NOT a theorywhile a hypothesis is often summed up as an educated guess, A theory in science, however, is the result of a hypothesis which has been tested by many other scientists from different perspectives and which holds up to experimental tests . . . A theory is an idea that has a large body of observational evidence to support it and that has come to be accepted by most scientists in the field of study. (http://www.valdosta.edu/~cbarnbau/phys_math/science.html) 2) A hypothesis containing faulty logic isnt science, nor is one containing conflicting data. 3) About it being philosophically unpopularscience is not a popularity contest, its about data and proof. Being a popular or unpopular idea wouldnt make it scientifically valid.) The Supreme Court has already struck down Louisianas Creationism Act in 1987 as being unconstitutional; this is basically the same thing, only with a new label slapped on it. If you care about public school education, please make a note of this! (A copy of the bill is posted on http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills041/biltxt/intro/HB0911I.HTM)