This highly polarized debate seems at the same time one-sided and naive. Could it be that only Westerners could carry on such a discussion? Haven’t the Eastern wisdom traditions been teaching for thousands of years that one cannot have faith in anything? Rather, truth must be experienced in order to realize “I am That and That is all there is.” This knowledge, which certainly encompasses both evolution and creation, cannot be talked about in everyday terms, but only pointed out by skillful teachers to those who are ready to understand.

The speaker's arguments that the intricate workings of a living cell cannot be reduced to chemistry and could not have evolved solely by random mutations and natural selection are not strong arguments in favor of "Intelligent Design". The theory of evolution does not require a strong reductionism. Concepts of emergence and emergent properties in living systems are alternatives to strong reductionism that do not require the magical thinking of an intelligent designer. Similarly, the success of the theory of evolution does not depend on the absolute sufficiency of random mutations and natural selection to account for all innovation (however robust and creative this process is known to be). For example, symbiosis (Jan Sapp, Lynn Margulis, etc) brings biological innovation without random mutations.

What is the appeal of a line of argument that basically says, "We cannot explain or understand everything about life just yet, so there must be an intelligent designer." Isn't this like wanting quick and easy answers, rather than tolerating uncertainties and ambiguities, patiently searching, and enjoying each step of the search?

I have to admit to feeling somewhat disappointed in people who express sentiments like those in the first post: That anyone who believes in God simply does so out of intellectual laziness and frustration over not knowing all the answers. Everyone chooses to believe what they believe. At some level, the theist and the naturalist are both in the same boat... they have made a personal choice. They have looked at some evidence (perhaps a lot of evidence), they have usually chosen to ignore other evidence, and they made a choice. They decided to put their faith in something. It does us no good to berate people for not making the choice that we made.

Sorry, I meant the previous post, not the first post.

However, this is not what I came here to say. I think that this issue is less a Constitutional issue, less a philosophical issue, and more an educational issue. The problem arises not in that people disagree on this issue. It's that they are not allowed to disagree on this issue in the context of a classroom.

Why do we still operate under the antiquated educational paradigm that says that 1) only SCIENCE (as if the subject could be totally isolated) can be discussed in a science classroom and 2) the teacher is the omniscient giver of wisdom, and should only pass down that which they know is absolutely true (and that, in turn, the student will swallow everything fed to them).

The first notion is simply a flawed idea that, unfortunately, our school system has been operating under for far too long. Simply look at the ongoing discussions regarding quantum physics or the debate over cloning and you can see that science, philosophy, morality, theology are all inextricably woven together that to say, "We are only going to discuss SCIENCE in this classroom!" not only is delusional, but robs students of a well-rounded understanding of many scientific topics.

The second shows an inability to see that society has changed. Education once was based on access to information (something that well-to-do people had and everyone else did not). Today, access to information is not an issue. Public libraries, the Internet... all of these make sure that anyone who wants a specific piece of knowledge can have it. So availability is not the issue. It's what to do with it once you've got it. Analysis. Understanding. Application. As a high school educator, I was almost sick to hear the one guest say that he doesn't think it's appropriate to have discussions about the strengths/flaws of evolutionary theory in a high school setting because he didn't think they'd be able to handle it. It's that type of mentality that is causing students to see their education as being less and less relevant (except inasmuch as it helps them with a future career).

To people on both sides of this issue, I would ask: What are you afraid of? Since when did open dialogue in America become something to be avoided? Isn't that what education is about? Exposure to varying viewpoints, not for the purpose of buying everything I hear, but for the purpose of learning how to evaluate and make decisions for myself? What exactly are you all afraid of?

In my opinion, the evolution v. relion debate is a false dichotomy. It is a conversation in which two different disciplines in which each side attempts to make the one discipline capitulate to the constructs of the other, somewhat akin to a language teacher trying to make her students conjugate fractions. The dialogue is neither an honest scientific nor an honest theological discussion.

Evolutionary theory is a description of the creation - AFTER the fact of creation. Good science focuses on the description. Although it may open many questions regarding origins of life, many of those are questions for which there are no possible answers within the discipline of science.

Religion is a discipline in which we explore our relationship with the Creator. Within this discipline, questions like "Who is the Creator?" and "What is the Creator's motivation?" are more profound than questions about the how? where? and when? of creation. The latter questions are more appropriately left to science.

As a practicing Christian, I believe that God is the Creator. I also believe that the Scriptures are one of God's many gifts to humanity - given to us to reveal God's plan for the Creator's relationship with the creation and, more specifically, God's plan for a personal relationship with each of us. The Scriptures are best used to facilitate an understanding of that relationship - not as a primer in science.

Earlier in the program Mr.(?) Paul Nelson argued that because "Science" could not explain [at least at this time]how life came about, this is prima facia evidence that Intelligent Design must be the cause. But I find this a non-sequitur, a duex et machina. Why, just because we do not understand why or how something happens, does this require that an intelligent designer is the cause?

complexity theory shows that highly complex systems emerge spontaneously from very simple agents (atoms, molecules, single cells) and that so called self-organizing or "emergent" behaviour characterizes all of creation. stephen wolfram, in A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE lays out a compelling case for this as well. therefore, we can say that any intelligent design in the universe went into creating properties of matter that didn't require an intelligent designer to produce the very large number of complex systems we experience, interact with and participate in every day. did an intelligent designer create such a self-organizing universe? who knows?

faith is a wonderful thing. we all have to believe in something to function. it's when we decide that just because we believe in something therefore it must be true we get into serious trouble. then we decide we're right and you're wrong therefore let's set up a death camp, start a crusade, an inquisition, or detonate a car bomb.

if religious people are to consider themselves truly spiritual, then need to have the courage to acknowledge the fundamental unknowability of ultimate reality. then we can come to these questions in an open spirit of dialogue, recognizing that whatever framework you put around reality may be the right one for you, but doesn't necessarily make it the right one for anyone else.

If we accept the creationist argument that the universe is too complex to happen by chance, and must have had an intelligent designer, then we have a problem. Because an intelligent designer is then also too complex to happen by chance. Who designed the designer? Personally, I designed myself, with the help of my hard working creative ancestors. Sincerely, John Pritchard.

Islam had settled the question of evolution to the full satisfaction of the believers when said in the Qur’an: “There has, certainly, been a time when man was not a thing worth mentioning. We have created man of clear water mixed with mud and continued to test him until We made him able to hear and see.” (76:1-2) This means that there has been a time when “man,” meaning mankind, was not “worth mentioning.” Thus, out of the “clear water mixed with mud” emerged life in the darkness of time. The phrase “continue to test him” is the essence of the whole verse as it refers to man’s struggle with his natural environment and with fellow, creatures. This means that there was a long period when man’s mind did not exist yet, from its first manifestation in water and clay and until it reached the state of mind.

Modern proponents of intelligent design overlook the fact that evolution itself is a highly intelligent thing to design, both in the sense that it would take a high degree of intelligence to design a successful evolutionary system, and that it would demonstrate a high degree of intelligence to equip life on earth with the ability to evolve new species to fill new ecological niches and to adapt to changing conditions and compensate for mass extinctions (e.g. after an asteroid strike). Theistic evolutionists have long been observing evidence of intelligent design and guidance in the origin and development of life on earth, and have done so without bias against God or the supernatural. They've also done so without compromising their professionalism or scientific objectivity. Yet their work has gone unlauded by the latest generation of ID'ers, who seem more intent on tearing down evolution than on building up the case for intelligent design, as if the latter cannot be accomplished without the former. Now that we've discovered evolution, and the benefits it confers on an ecosystem, what is the point of arguing an intelligent designer could only design the inferior system we had in mind before we discovered evolution? Does ID stand for Intelligent Design or Inferior Design?

When teaching Darwin's theory, Stephen Gould expressed the idea that evolution and the existence of "God" were two seperate debates. One must separate the physical from the spiritual in order to understand this distinction.

Application of the accepted standards of Critical Thinking < www.criticalthinking.org > reveals that upwards of 90% of ALL disagreement in the creation/evolution dialog is due more to careless semantics that to any actual scientific findings.

The only form of science universally presented in undergraduate scienc instruction is "empirical" science as determined by the Baconian scientific-method requiring physical confirmation. This is the "default" meaning understood and accepted when no other alternate proof-method has been applied.

There ARE other lesser known methods. Such as Hypothetico-Deductive (H.D.) or Historical Narrative methods which are those actually applied to qualify evolutionary explanations as "scientific". These methods, poorly explained (if at all) in introductry textbooks, do NOT rely on objective "empirical" verification, but upon subjective "mental deduction" to qualify as "science". Such usage is widely and openly acknowledged in smaller circulation more specialized technical, evolutionary publications. Though little known to the public, a Google search for either produces well over 20,000 hits.

NO basic evolutionary claim qualifies as "science" under the generally understood "default" definition of the term. (My long offered $1,000 still awaits any first such example.) Most present controversy is due to evolutionists carelessly (or purposely)failing to identify the scientific-method actually applied. Failure to do so misleads the reader to believe the "default" (physically verifiable)empirical scientific method was used. IF the lesser-known, less rigorous methods known to have been applied is shared with the reader, this will eliminate this semantic flaw, and controversy will immediatly disappear.

A similar problem exists with the present imprecise (ambiguous) definitional understanding for the crucial term EVOLUTION.

This can be addressed in a second future post or included in a draft e-mail Glossery of misunderstood (or misused) terms encountered in this dichotomy currently in progress. Simply request same from dabradbury@comcast.net

DaveBradbury

Intelligent design is a school of scientific thought that is rising toward certain ascendancy in the sciences. Not only in Biology but in all of science, the environment, and logically by extension later to the social sciences as well. The fact that it appears concurrently with other similar but intrinsically deficient viewpoints which also challenge Neo-Darwinism, such as self-organization theory, spinoffs of cellular automata and complexity theory, is no accident. I am no anthroposophist, but all of tnis suggests that God is revealing Himself in ever greater measure to mankind perhaps in the Last Days as the Bible says he would (viz., Romans 1-20; Hebrews 11:3; and Psalms 19:3).

certainly the "speech" of nature is being heard as never before, and man who was granted "dominion" over it can hope to learn ever more amazing worthwhile things--if he will only seek them with humility! As per education policy right now, as Nelson recommended: we simply need to "teach the controversy" surrounding Darwinism and its many contradictions. And it logically must begin to be taught in this manner at the earliest level where the theory itself is introduced. Shanks may be an atheist and a nice chap at that, but the social/historical consequences of unfettered atheistic Darwinism are not pleasant to review. Additonally, the oft-touted necessity of it necessary to a meaningful "scientific research program" is just pure bluster. It has been a positive hindrance--not a boon--to advancement in the sciences.

Intelligent Design is a ploy of the Christian conservatives to get religion into the schools. It might work as a science fiction story, but not as science.

What they don’t understand is that the reason, at the moment, we are the richest; most powerful country in the world is because we have kept religion out of our government. By keeping religion out of government we have the freedom of thought that the countries ruled by religion don’t have.

Intelligent Design is an attempt by religious Christians within this country to teach theology in schools. The Debate between these two ideas (Evolution & Creation) is a false one. Intelligent Design is simply not science. This theory would not exist without the Christian community.

As a community that is free from the terror of a Theocracy, we must simply not allow this taught in schools. Schools have no business using our tax payer money to teach the supernatural. This is a break from what our founders believed.

Thomas Jefferson would turn over in his grave if he knew a Christian political group was taking steps to hinder our freedom by hindering science with religion.

I find it odd that the same group who constantly reminds us of the sacrifice made for our freedom, the same group who fled European persecution would even dare to impose its own views on our children. This is a direct assault on our freedom, and our way of life. No theology should be taught in a science class in a public school.