Regardless of how much evidence we find supporting either theory, they are both theories. To teach one theory as fact vs another as fiction is wrong. Teachers should present both theories as such, and give the supporting evidence for each, then let students decide for themselves which to believe.

The real issue, it seems to me, is the accounting for biological information. The discussion of whether complex biological structures are designed or not is irrelevant. What cries out for explanation is the genetic code and the information contained in the DNA of all living organisms. If one admits that the genetic code is a language and that DNA contains information (that should be easy to do), then the issue becomes crystal clear. Since it is a universal human experience that all languages and information are preceded by intelligence, it seems reasonable to conclude that the most complex information in the universe would likewise require a pre-existing intelligence. It’s pretty simple, really. Unless one wants to argue that the genetic code is not a language or that DNA does not contain information or that we can have language and information apart from pre-existing intelligence, the game is over. The very idea of language and information without intelligence is incoherent. Therefore, I wonder why the methodological naturalists are so bent on denying that intelligence is behind biological information. Methinks it is a philosophical predisposition, uncluttered by logic and facts about the universe, that is at the bottom of this view. Darwinism and its modern synthesis utterly fail to account for information. This is the “dirty little trade secret” of evolution. But it's out now.

I can see that the 'careless semantics' described above by Dave Bradbury and extensively used by darwinists, the ones who believe in common descent and a gradual transformism: "macroevolution", those dominant people are deliberately using that 'careless semantics' as their rhetorical tool of misinformation to cover-up for the weakness of the darwinian speculation. For example, there is no 'speciation' (the darwinian 'origin of species'), the reason for my bold claim is that all the published articles on that topic are only dealing with 'variation' or 'subspeciation' within similar kinds of organisms, because within them, there is genetic compatibility and a fertile offspring. That is true for the Galapagos finches and for cichlids, and for Gasterosteus fishes, for Orconectes crayfish as well as for Laupala crickets, among the examples present in all different groups of organisms. Just by the a careful bringing of more precision to our semantics, we can debunk the evolutionary concept of 'speciation', and at the same time, like I am doing here, to propose new research possibilities for a non-invasive generation of abundant and new biodiversity: http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000553.html

An "intelligent design hypothesis" is based on the simultaneous observations of improbability and function [or specification or benefit] --- you need to observe both improbability and function to propose that an intelligent agent may be the cause. [The iconic examples of this include the anthropic principle in cosmology and irreducible complexity in biology.] Where we observe improbability and function, an intelligent cause is a valid hypothesis. As such ID hypotheses are already accepted in the scientific disciplines of forensics, archeology, deciphering encryption and hieroglyphics, SETI, and so on; i.e., ID is already "science". The problem for material naturalists is not ID per se, but the application of ID where material naturalists have, a priori, disallowed an ID hypothesis beforehand regardless of the observations. As such, material naturalism's a priori disallowance of ID is a philosophic position, not a scientific one. Total insistence on material naturalism alone [methodological naturalism] is more like faith based religious dogma than scientific open-mindedness.

"Intelligent design" is a tactic developed by Conservatives to make people think that it is perfectly scientific, but the term is misleading. "Intelligent design" would be thought by many to mean that our design gets better and better over time, which is not far from the theories of evolution and natural selection. In reality though, the term "intelligent design" is teaching creationism. This should not be taught in public schools that we, the taxpayers, are paying for. The whole idea of public schools is to keep things unbiased and educational, so that students can learn and keep their basic rights and beliefs.

I hear ingrained in this discussion the assumption that the Theory of Evolution explains the origin of life, this is completely wrong, Darwins theory is of the Origin of Species, not life. This is a huge distinction that noone has touched on. Life from nonlife is abiogenesis, a completely separate theory.

As a lifelong scientist and Zen Buddhist, we have great respect for all things scientific, but not a driving need for all answers. I'm an Evolutionist, but Zen isn't much for dogma, so if there's unanswered questions in Evolution Theory, we're likely to say, "that's what scientists are for . . . I have every confidence they'll find that answer in time."

Bbarker: I think you are misunderstanding the term "inteligent design" You say it is a farse to disguise Creationism, however there is no vast subliminal attempt to brainwash people into believing there is a God. Inteligent desin means that and "an intelligent being" (I.E. God) created us and the earth. Hence it is the same thing as Creationism. I would also like to point out that Christians pay taxes as well as athiests. If you want there to be a good educational system then why wouldn't you want both sides to be expressed? (Especialy since Creationism has more scientific proof than its counterpart) -Joe

In my opinion intelligent design is not science at all. The idea of god is not a scientific one but a religious one. I can not accept intelligent design as science until science proves there is a god, or at least have evidence of him/her/it.

I think some people misunderstand seperation of church and state. Seperation of church and state doesn't mean that you can't talk about religion, it merely means that you cannot encourage it. Now if you wanted to eliminate all subject matter from school completely, you'd be removing some major subject matter for some classes. Is there really anything wrong with informing students of multiple views on creationism? The only reason why evolutionism has been deemed "acceptable" for schools is the fact that it's the only seemingly logical explanation for the origin of life that doesn't involve there being a superior being. What is evolutionism but merely an explanation for the origin of life that applies the laws of science to it? You could probably come up with an entirely different theory of the origin of life by using scientific knowledge. So why should one thing be taught in schools just because scientists, who have biased views on the origin of life, think it MIGHT be true? But to be fair, this theory should be made apparent to students, but not it alone. Evolutionism should be taught along side other views on origins of life, because none of them have officially been accepted as being "the truth."

As a parent and educator, I support providing students in all schools with information on any given topic that is as complete as possible. For intelligent design to be included in science classes as a theory alongside evolution serves this purpose, and offers students the opportunity to discuss diverse ideas and draw their own conclusions. As an agnostic, my motivations for this postion are based on reason, not religion.

This is a very whiteman issue - it speaks to how much white/western thought is so enthocentric. Does intelligent design accept beliefs from other indigenous cultures ... does it accept the idea that cultures tied closely to the land still use their indigenous religiion to explain creation?

If intelligent design does not accept other cultures' ideas on creationism... it is just putting out the same old thing - that white/christian culture is supreme and discounts other cultures' iideas.

if inteeligent design does include other cultures' ideas on creation then why do so many "christians" destroy the very scared essence of the "supreme being's creation" - nature - in the name of a god... this seems pretty hypocritical to me... ... I wonder if this arguement is going on in China, Korea, Denmark, Thailand, New Gunea etc.

As an agnostic (because I can't fathom why there is something rather than nothing) I can admit the

possibility of Intelligent Design even though there is not a scintilla of evidence for it.

What I can't understand is why anyone who is religious can tolerate the concept. This Intelligent

Designer has given us birth defects, river blindness, cancer, Alzhreimer's disease, war,

pestillence---and religion, to give humans something special to kill each other over. At the very least

this Designer is incompetent and it's hard to believe that He (She?) can be anything but a criminal

psychopath. I wish I could be an atheist.

Is it possible that both factions of this discussion are talking about the same thing, i.e., that evolution may be the thought of a Thinker, but the rational scientific mind is horrified of any pathetic fallacy that can assign human processes to something of such magnitude beyond our comprehension, at this time. Evolution has developed in an orderly sequential way because the mind operates this way. Though the stages of evolution may take eons this is irrelevant to this Thinker. Could we put this contention to rest by renaming the "Theory" to say "Hypothesis"? A Hypyothesis is a proposal of thought which is submitted for consideration by other qualified thinkers and can be edited or disproven, given further information. A theory, it seems, doesn't hold weight, anyone with an idea can have a theory.

While it is fine to debate Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, it seems to me that the choice of such a topic for debate limits the important questions; questions that need to be considered before you can hope to come to resolution about controversial issues. At the end of this post I will contend that debate should properly lead to resolution, and while, as I say, it's fine to debate this controversial issue, it seems that it would be helpful (and perhaps better) to break the issue out into its greater context, and to debate those issues prior to coming down to such an action item as to if, when and where to teach Intelligent Design.

What we seem to be debating here is 'God as creator' (versus the principle that life systems self-organize). Some Eastern traditions conceive of God as Creator, Sustainer AND Destroyer.

Since everyone dies and the world is imperfect, where bad, even terrible things happen to nice people, children and defenseless animals- 'God as Creator' is always running into the 'why would God have such bad things happen to relatively innoncent populations.

And, since everyone is separated from all friends and loved ones at death, the view of 'God as Creator' is a very limited role for a concept/reality of God.

I say this because this argument, or debate, doesn't/cannot come to resolution, in part because the topic does not address the broader questions of creation and reality. We're discussing if and when a theory of creation should be taught, and a lot of the issue pivots on whether or not Intelligent Design is valid, and we're tending to apply the scientific standard as if that is the de facto measure of Truth, which any good scientist will tell you it is not.

Personally, I agree that Intelligent Design should be taught in college, along with evolutionary theory and Eastern (and other)perspectives. In addition, science as 'Truth' needs to be critically evaluated as well. All of this is rather sophisticated and important, and K-12 seems to require a focus on the basics of knowledge.

While some High School students could perhaps begin a 'survey' of these issues, what I propose would take more than one semester to consider, so perhaps it could be introduced towards the end of High School, but then the consideration would best be developed at institutions beyond High School. It would be difficult to scope such a project (and establish curriculum), since the issue of what needs to be considered is yet contentious.

However such a program could happen if you can find people with integrity and vision. The need is clearly there. Such a program could lay the ground for an understanding and tolerance that would eliminate the need to debate this sort of 'limited' topic. And likely, it will not be resolved otherwise.

As a PS: The great value of debate is integration and resolution of opposing ideas which opens the way to progress. Debaters do not always keep that in mind and instead only advocate their position. Debaters should be trained that debate should serve the greater public good; good debaters need the mental agility to serve this ethical imperative.