My comments in blue. Hate to burst your bubble, but in my unhumble opinion, your article is horseshit and does a disservice to science (I know that's strong, but I hope you see why). And I say that as a non-theist who does not support the teaching of ID as science.

[ QUOTE ]
Where Education Must Not Go Wrong… Even if Thinking Does
By college kid

In the October 3rd issue of the [school paper], one article caught my attention, “Defending the concept of intelligent design.” On the previous page was an article titled “Intelligent design is not science.” Intelligent design has recently become a hot topic, especially since George W. Bush told reporter Ron Hutcheson that intelligent design and evolution should have equal footing in public schools. That comment sparked heated debate and gave advocates of intelligent design more power.

The fact that intelligent design has gained such strength and popularity disturbs me more than a little bit. In truth, I am outraged and bewildered. <font color="blue"> I don't think describing your emotional response adds anything constructive to your argument. </font>

The articles listed above did a poor job of identifying and supporting exactly what the issue at hand is. They focused more on criticism and factual errors than what’s actually important. The topic which must be directly addressed is whether intelligent design is far enough from religion to be constitutionally allowed in schools, and if so, should it be? <font color="blue"> This is not the real issue. The real issue is whether ID is a reasonable scientific theory, not whether it is far enough from religion. If we had conclusive scientific proof that the world was created by a supreme being, don't you think it should be taught, even if it coincides with some religious beliefs?</font>

To answer the first part, we need to know exactly what intelligent design is and exactly what religion is. <font color="blue"> Who cares what religion is, that's not the issue. </font> I will use dictionary.com for this purpose. Intelligent design is “a theory which states that nature and complex biological structures were designed by ‘intelligent beings.’” These intelligent beings must, following the previous definition, be something supernatural (though not specifically God). <font color="blue"> Use of the term supernatural is not reeally necessary to me, if ID were true then it would be perfectly natural (just like I wouldn't describe the Big Bang as supernatural). </font> Religion is “belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.” Intelligent design and religion are clearly and firmly connected by the mere definition of what they are. <font color="blue"> ID does not necessarily validate or support any religious doctrine. </font> Such a close connection is inarguably too close for the Constitution to allow for the teaching of such a theory. <font color="blue"> ABSOLUTELY FALSE! </font> But let’s say for the sake of argument that it is allowed to be taught in schools, since currently and unconstitutionally, it is.

Whether it is right or wrong to teach intelligent design with evolution is an interesting question because we must first understand the goals of public education. Parents and the general public have agreed, via numerous polls <font color="blue"> ? </font> , that the goal of a public education is to endow young people with the academic knowledge and necessary skills that allow them to successfully contribute to society through gainful employment or enrollment in a higher learning institution. The overwhelming majority of teachers wish to do more than that—they wish to form the child into a whole <font color="blue"> What an unfounded assumption! </font> . That is, to explore their individuality, creativity, ability to function in groups, learn to teach themselves, and gain an understanding of logic and critical thinking skills, among other things <font color="blue"> These things can arguably support the ability to be gainfully employed or seek higher learning, can't they? I'm already having serious misgivings about your objectivity! </font> . Both goals are admirable and I am pleased that both are being executed in a harmonious fashion by teachers of various academic subjects and skillful trades. The problem occurs when teachers’ religious beliefs slip into their need to mold their students <font color="blue"> Do you have evidence of this? This does not necessairly have anything to do with ID. </font> . Also, the problem is compounded when those beliefs affect choices and beliefs which would normally be associated with an independently thinking person. Teachers inadvertently spread religious doctrine and morals as absolute truth (only because they believe it to be so) and thus confuse and mix science and faith <font color="blue"> When? Who? What? These are unfounded allegations. I never recieved such doctrine in public h.s. or beyond. </font> . Rational, independent thinking is pushed aside. <font color="blue"> And evidence to support this charge? </font>

Since it cannot remotely fit with any other subject, intelligent design has attempted to pass as a form of science. <font color="blue"> That does not seem fair at all to characterize it as such. </font> Once again, let us go back to our friend, the dictionary. Science is nothing more than the practice of employing the scientific process; science is “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” A scientific theory is not just a theory as we would use the word socially; it is “an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.” From wilstar.com:

"A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged. A scientific theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole." <font color="blue"> That may be the worst analogy of science that I ever read. </font>

The theory of evolution is a set of correlated ideas and data, collected and verified independently, which follows from the idea of natural selection outlined in Darwin’s Origin of Species. Evolution is a valid scientific theory, on par with a scientific law <font color="blue"> False. The entire theory of evolution is not a scientific law and cannot be verified directly.</font> : its effects can be observed, experiments reproduced, and data used for accurate predictions. <font color="blue"> No experiment has ever generated life from inanimate matter and evolved this life into a human being. </font>

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is not even close to science. Its hypothesis cannot be tested or verified. <font color="blue"> Nor can the Big Bang, if you want to get technical, yet that is taught. </font> There is no way to prove or disprove it. <font color="blue">No offense, but currently the same can be said for evolution. </font> The idea is exactly as reasonable as my telling you that all black holes are filled with jelly doughnuts. <font color="blue"> You are really not being objective at all and resorting to throwing mud as a form of argument. I am going to stop wasting my time reading the rest. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]