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)