The FSM is a contrivance atheists to lampoon those who have sincere religious beliefs. It's a mean caricature and is intended as political theater, not as any kind of meaningful discourse or dialogue. Please. Stop.

The FSM is a contrivance atheists to lampoon those who have sincere religious beliefs.

It's a mean caricature and is intended as political theater, not as any kind of meaningful discourse or dialogue.

Please. Stop.

You are being silly. Intelligent Design is not worthy of consideration or debate.

You are being silly. Intelligent Design is not worthy of consideration or debate.

Intelligent design has no place in public education outside of a philosophy class. In schools run by religious organizations, the teaching is fine, but in the public school science classroom, what should be taught are the facts, and the fact is that evolution is the most correct theory around. ID is a breach of the doctrine of separation between church and state because the account used as its basis comes from the book of Genesis, obviously a religious text. The fact that a majority of Americans believe in this account is not a reason to teach it or any other doctrine based off of anything non-scientific. It is actually dangerous and detrimental to teach ID as one way that the species on Earth came to exist, because the US is already starting to fall behind other nations scientifically, and it is very difficult for anyone to make an exceptional scientific advance through the study of religion. Furthermore, the idea behind ID is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that people are too complex to have been created by natural selection, so there must be an intelligent designer. Anyone who thinks this not only insults science, but also their deity of choice, because people are incredibly flawed in their design: 1. 10 of the 14 enzymes that replicate DNA are moderately to highly likely to make mistakes, some on the order of 1 out of 100 bases, increasing the chance for cancer and children inheriting genetic diseases. 2. The eye, with light sensitive cells behind nerves and blood vessels, causing obscured images, and of course there is the blind spot from the spot where those nerves and blood vessels must go through the retina. 3. The female pelvis, having not been designed for both walking upright and giving birth, made childbirth the most dangerous for human females of all the mammals before modern medicine made up for the problem. 4. The appendix; no real use, but if it gets infected, you can die. 5. DNA in the mitochondria, where they can be damaged very easily by free radicals and the intermediates of respiration, making these genes most susceptible to harmful mutations. 6. The Y-chromosome is slowly gathering mutations because it cannot swap DNA as most people don't have 2 Y-chromosomes. On the other hand, the X-chromosome lacks this problem, as about 50% of the population has two and mutations can be swapped out, or at least not effect every cell, as each individual cell in a woman randomly shuts off one of these chromosomes. 7. There are many more instances of poor design, both macroscopically and microscopically, but I think I made the point. Evolution makes mistakes, it cannot create a perfect creature, and the fact that this is the case means it is working far more than an unseen God.

Intelligent design has no place in public education outside of a philosophy class. In schools run by religious organizations, the teaching is fine, but in the public school science classroom, what should be taught are the facts, and the fact is that evolution is the most correct theory around.

ID is a breach of the doctrine of separation between church and state because the account used as its basis comes from the book of Genesis, obviously a religious text. The fact that a majority of Americans believe in this account is not a reason to teach it or any other doctrine based off of anything non-scientific. It is actually dangerous and detrimental to teach ID as one way that the species on Earth came to exist, because the US is already starting to fall behind other nations scientifically, and it is very difficult for anyone to make an exceptional scientific advance through the study of religion.

Furthermore, the idea behind ID is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that people are too complex to have been created by natural selection, so there must be an intelligent designer. Anyone who thinks this not only insults science, but also their deity of choice, because people are incredibly flawed in their design:

1. 10 of the 14 enzymes that replicate DNA are moderately to highly likely to make mistakes, some on the order of 1 out of 100 bases, increasing the chance for cancer and children inheriting genetic diseases.
2. The eye, with light sensitive cells behind nerves and blood vessels, causing obscured images, and of course there is the blind spot from the spot where those nerves and blood vessels must go through the retina.
3. The female pelvis, having not been designed for both walking upright and giving birth, made childbirth the most dangerous for human females of all the mammals before modern medicine made up for the problem.
4. The appendix; no real use, but if it gets infected, you can die.
5. DNA in the mitochondria, where they can be damaged very easily by free radicals and the intermediates of respiration, making these genes most susceptible to harmful mutations.
6. The Y-chromosome is slowly gathering mutations because it cannot swap DNA as most people don't have 2 Y-chromosomes. On the other hand, the X-chromosome lacks this problem, as about 50% of the population has two and mutations can be swapped out, or at least not effect every cell, as each individual cell in a woman randomly shuts off one of these chromosomes.
7. There are many more instances of poor design, both macroscopically and microscopically, but I think I made the point.

Evolution makes mistakes, it cannot create a perfect creature, and the fact that this is the case means it is working far more than an unseen God.

I disagree with the idea that you can present non-scientific information to students that are enrolled in an educational program and let them decide for themselves. There is a mountain of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and not a single scientific fact supporting the idea of intelligent design. To put intelligent design on a level playing field with evolution is a slap in the face to science and reality, and it has no place in our education system. Let's keep the speculative, mystical ideas of the clergy between the walls of the church and out of our classrooms and scientific institutions.

I disagree with the idea that you can present non-scientific information to students that are enrolled in an educational program and let them decide for themselves. There is a mountain of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, and not a single scientific fact supporting the idea of intelligent design. To put intelligent design on a level playing field with evolution is a slap in the face to science and reality, and it has no place in our education system. Let's keep the speculative, mystical ideas of the clergy between the walls of the church and out of our classrooms and scientific institutions.

In response to dmdzine: There is no evidence of the supernatural, and I am actually going to go read that book to see what you consider "evidence" of creationism. I don't make a habit of considering sides of an issue that are rooted in faith-based ideas. And, simply because there may be some holes in the evidence of evolution, or missing links that have not been discovered yet, does not in any way validate the theory of ID. I love this quote by the way... "The tides are changing, and it is coming to the point that raving incoherently about evolution being the only truth makes one sound like an uneducated and ignorant fool." This tactic of trying to undermine my intelligence with comments like this, does not prove your point or make your stance valid. It is purely included to try and induce an emotional response and discredit my stance with insults instead of ideas. When there is "actual" proof, not proof by negation, that God exists, I will begin to listen to these theories in order to keep up with the changing tides.

In response to dmdzine:

There is no evidence of the supernatural, and I am actually going to go read that book to see what you consider "evidence" of creationism. I don't make a habit of considering sides of an issue that are rooted in faith-based ideas. And, simply because there may be some holes in the evidence of evolution, or missing links that have not been discovered yet, does not in any way validate the theory of ID.

I love this quote by the way...

"The tides are changing, and it is coming to the point that raving incoherently about evolution being the only truth makes one sound like an uneducated and ignorant fool."

This tactic of trying to undermine my intelligence with comments like this, does not prove your point or make your stance valid. It is purely included to try and induce an emotional response and discredit my stance with insults instead of ideas. When there is "actual" proof, not proof by negation, that God exists, I will begin to listen to these theories in order to keep up with the changing tides.

I generally disagree with the thought of teaching intelligent design in public schools -- especially anything earlier than high school.  My major issue is that it's quite difficult to present two opposite viewpoints to a child and expect them to be able to think about them each objectively and formulate their own opinion.  Heck, many adults aren't objective about this topic either, otherwise there'd be little to debate about.

From what I remember of the public school system (ugh, I just got my 10 year reunion postcard), there were two types of classes:  Factual and Factual + Cultural.

Factual:

• Math:  facts
• Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Earth/World Sciences:  facts
• History:  facts (as well as they're known)
• Foreign Languages:  facts (grammatical correctness and customs of other countries)
• Shop Class:  facts (this is how you cut a 45 degree angle on a 2x4)
• Home Economics:  facts (this is how you make a pizza, however nasty it ended up being)
• English (part 1):  facts (grammatical correctness, spelling, etc.)

Factual + Cultural:

• English (part 2) / Literature:  (reading comprehension, discussion of books, etc.)
• Music and Arts:  Not just how to play an instrument or how to paint with water colors, but also cultural influences, etc.

Religion has absolutely no place in the first group.  There's not enough factual evidence in religion for it to be placed there.  In the second group, I have mixed feelings.  My only positive thought about grouping it here is that I believe culture is important, and when the majority of this country's population believes in intelligent design, like it or not, it is part of the culture.  However, if done so, it must be taught without bias, which I generally believe is something that cannot be done with this topic.

An interesting thought to ponder:

Suppose that John grew to being an adult without any knowledge of what religion really was.  When John became an adult, he was explained all aspects of a religion -- say Christianity for arguments sake.  What do you think the percentage chance is of John adopting Christianity as his own belief?  I'll give you a hint:  its a very low number.  In fact, its about the same percentage chance that your average adult believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Why?  Well, for one, you could read the Wikipedia article and see that it's a "parody religion".  More importantly, what adult in their right mind is going to believe in a monster that flies around made of spaghetti?  I've certainly never seen anything like that before flying in the skies.  And three, it just sounds silly, right?

So compare that to John at 18 who is told for the first time in his life about a magical garden with a snake that talks to people.  Or a story about a woman giving birth when she was still a virgin, ironically to a man who cured leprosy just by touching the ill and was resurrected 3 days after dying.  Or how about another guy who could part the waters of the ocean.  Most Johns are going to think the person telling him this stuff is a whacko and should be committed.  Or maybe just think the person is being silly.

Now, contrast that to telling the same stories to Sam at two years old.  You can tell a two year old virtually anything and they'll believe you.  The easiest example is colors.  You point at the red square and say "this color is red".  They'll nod and associate that color to the word "red".  If you instead said "this color is blue", would they question you?  Of course not.  They're going to associate the word "blue" with the color they see.  If you keep reinforcing that throughout their childhood, they'll grow up calling things blue instead of red.  Children, especially young children, implicitly trust people without question.  They're very impressionable.

All of this gets to my point:  Teaching non-factual topics to children is a very dangerous idea.  What you end up with are people who believe something for no other reason than someone told them to believe it, whether it's a simple "this color is blue" or its a much larger topic such as religion.

Of course, with religion and the whole life after death deal, there's also the penalty of burning in hell forever to really make you question thinking too critically about it, huh.

I generally disagree with the thought of teaching intelligent design in public schools -- especially anything earlier than high school.  My major issue is that it's quite difficult to present two opposite viewpoints to a child and expect them to be able to think about them each objectively and formulate their own opinion.  Heck, many adults aren't objective about this topic either, otherwise there'd be little to debate about.

From what I remember of the public school system (ugh, I just got my 10 year reunion postcard), there were two types of classes:  Factual and Factual + Cultural.

Factual:

• Math:  facts
• Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Earth/World Sciences:  facts
• History:  facts (as well as they're known)
• Foreign Languages:  facts (grammatical correctness and customs of other countries)
• Shop Class:  facts (this is how you cut a 45 degree angle on a 2x4)
• Home Economics:  facts (this is how you make a pizza, however nasty it ended up being)
• English (part 1):  facts (grammatical correctness, spelling, etc.)

Factual + Cultural:

• English (part 2) / Literature:  (reading comprehension, discussion of books, etc.)
• Music and Arts:  Not just how to play an instrument or how to paint with water colors, but also cultural influences, etc.

Religion has absolutely no place in the first group.  There's not enough factual evidence in religion for it to be placed there.  In the second group, I have mixed feelings.  My only positive thought about grouping it here is that I believe culture is important, and when the majority of this country's population believes in intelligent design, like it or not, it is part of the culture.  However, if done so, it must be taught without bias, which I generally believe is something that cannot be done with this topic.

An interesting thought to ponder:

Suppose that John grew to being an adult without any knowledge of what religion really was.  When John became an adult, he was explained all aspects of a religion -- say Christianity for arguments sake.  What do you think the percentage chance is of John adopting Christianity as his own belief?  I'll give you a hint:  its a very low number.  In fact, its about the same percentage chance that your average adult believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Why?  Well, for one, you could read the Wikipedia article and see that it's a "parody religion".  More importantly, what adult in their right mind is going to believe in a monster that flies around made of spaghetti?  I've certainly never seen anything like that before flying in the skies.  And three, it just sounds silly, right?

So compare that to John at 18 who is told for the first time in his life about a magical garden with a snake that talks to people.  Or a story about a woman giving birth when she was still a virgin, ironically to a man who cured leprosy just by touching the ill and was resurrected 3 days after dying.  Or how about another guy who could part the waters of the ocean.  Most Johns are going to think the person telling him this stuff is a whacko and should be committed.  Or maybe just think the person is being silly.

Now, contrast that to telling the same stories to Sam at two years old.  You can tell a two year old virtually anything and they'll believe you.  The easiest example is colors.  You point at the red square and say "this color is red".  They'll nod and associate that color to the word "red".  If you instead said "this color is blue", would they question you?  Of course not.  They're going to associate the word "blue" with the color they see.  If you keep reinforcing that throughout their childhood, they'll grow up calling things blue instead of red.  Children, especially young children, implicitly trust people without question.  They're very impressionable.

All of this gets to my point:  Teaching non-factual topics to children is a very dangerous idea.  What you end up with are people who believe something for no other reason than someone told them to believe it, whether it's a simple "this color is blue" or its a much larger topic such as religion.

Of course, with religion and the whole life after death deal, there's also the penalty of burning in hell forever to really make you question thinking too critically about it, huh.