Brian, Fellow posters,

I was just reading an article by an American Muslim student on "Islam and the big bang theory":

http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch13.html
(2nd half of the article).

We may be all wrong, no god, no big bang, Just transitional growth and understanding for us all, hopefully.

The only thing in existence is change, the only thing that doesn't change, is religious intelligent design. Any thing that doesn't change and adapt within the known universe are illusions, they fall behind and disappears, as all illusions do. Just like ours and former societies, their illusions and will soon disappear. Religions and societies only wish to change within, they neglect what is outside them, until it changes beyond their illusions and leaves them to decay and collapse.

Science will soon discover well within our time, that the big bang is illusion, as god the creator has been shown to be.

This universe may well be a part of many more or less intelligent universes that may interact with us. They may also discover that black holes are really just exits from this dimension to another and that stars are actually the devices that transform things from another dimension into energies of this dimension. Those massive things in the universes that spew forth matter and create stars, could also be importing and transforming energies from other dimensions to matter in this dimension. Why not, prove me wrong scientifically, or via intelligent design.

I think the debate is really about where our intelligence comes from, not the physically changing universe. We will only answer that question, when we either move our intelligence to another dimension, or to nothing. Our scientific approach is the only way forward, as all scientists would accept that they cannot explain the mind, because it is outside our 3rd dimensional senses.

Religion seeks to control the mind, an illusion, because minds can only be controlled, when they don't want to be responsible enough, to be free.

If the suggestion is to teach 'science' as science, including the Darwinian theory of natural selection, I don't have a problem (as a Christian) with this.

IF.... on the other hand, the Darwinian view is EXTENDED and added to and made to suggest that it explains the origin of life, then I have HUGE problems with this.
a) Its speculative and UNscientific.
b) It is just as bad/evil/twisted etc as 'the extremists who want to get at our kids' as one poster said.
c) It involves 'faith'.

I would be MOST happy for 'origins' to be covered in Philosophy/Social studies arena's where ID can be presented as one theory amongst others.

For sylvia,
'The retina is the wrong way around' I'd say .. when you can come up with an eye even a millionth as good as the one we have, then I feel you might be qualified to make value judgements on the eye as it stands.

For those who think 'ID is just the back door for Creationism' I tend to agree. But I don't have a problem with that. The concept of 'Creation' is so massive on a social level, and so important to our sense of being, purpose and reason for existence, that I'm happy with anything moving in that direction.

Without "Creation" we have the barren dark, empty, meaningless, futile, valueless wasteland of secular humanism, existentialism, nihilism and such teachings as those of Jean Paul Sartre.

ID ? Bring it on.

The Alchemist,
Have to agree with you on this point. Quote "I think the debate is really about where our intelligence comes from, not the physically changing universe. We will only answer that question, when we either move our intelligence to another dimension...".

We might think the basic building blocks of natural physical chemistry is constantly changing, but I have a view that it operates in cycles returning to a former state. Oxygen, nitrogen and carbon may combine to form a transient body but at some stage they break down to be independent of that form. They will always be able to be identified in the chemistry composition of that form.

I note most of the opposition is debating 'there is no God', which is an intreaging basis of opposition to intelligent design. Perhaps its because they do not want a defined moral guidance for their mind and behaviour. They prefer not to see design features that demonstrate intelligence, otherwise there might just be a God.

Observe the spider how much brain does she have? Who taught her to weave her web, yet she does it with precision and pattern. When did her mother give her lessons? Who taught the ant to work in community and function for the betterment of their society. How big is their brain?

It appears that only man acts outside the blessing of the whole community, or is not able to recognise intelligent design or observe intelligent order in his world.

A poster said -

"if we restrict the set of possible explanations to exclude design, we are no longer looking for truth"

The search for an explanation is not ultimately done in primary or even secondary schools. Realistically, if a topic is to be taught at these levels, be it religion, science, mathematics, music or law - we must convey the topic as understood by the majority in the field.

Students need to think sure, to debate sure, but I don't expect them to be given complete free reign to come up with an opinion on their own.

If for example I was teaching music for example and a student wanted to explore an alternative form/type - I would say sure do it, consider it, try it. But don't come to my classroom unless you want to learn what I have to offer.

I would not be saying that my personal view is 100% correct, but this is music theory and technique as currently understood. Learn it if you like. Go somewhere else if you like. If you wish to challenge it then I would advise you to learn it first. Understand also that this is the theory/technique that will be used as a basis for entry to other institutions.

Whitewombat, Isn't the sudent asking for your help to understand the other form of music? Is it because you don't understand the other form of music to explain it or is it a matter of you not considering the other music form worthy of theory?