Darwinism and evolution are an integral part of our collective thinking. Although only a theory, natural selection is widely accepted by the vast majority of scientists and it would be a disaster if it were not taught at schools.

Darwin is to biology as Shakespeare is to English literature. Not everybody follows his theory but it has had a profound influence on the way society sees itself.

Anybody not teaching Darwin is guilty of censorship on an extraordinary scale.

Can everyone stop saying "only a theory"?

In science, a theory is a hypothesis which has been confirmed by repeated experiments and observations. They are NOT the same as the common use of the word theory, as in a hunch or guess. This is much closer to the definition of hypothesis, which is an attempt to explain observations of natural phenomena. Interestingly, ID advocate Prof. Behe admitted in court this week that ID is actually consistent with the accepted definition of a hypothesis, and not the scientific definition of a theory.

Certain groups seem to distort the meaning of the word theory to infer that evolution is not supported by a vast body of scientific research. This is not the case.

And the article talks about God, I sort of lost focus about half way through.... But to be a true scientific theory all the individual parts that make up the theory must in themselves repeatably testable. For evolution at least it has the DNA, replication, genes, sequencing etc. there may be gaps (I am not Biologist) but most mechanisms behind it are there.

So ID must test one of the mechanisms and a good one to start is the designer. Is it God and how to prove? And which god? Or is it aliens doing genetic engineering , and how to prove? This MUST be discussed for ID to be seriously considered. And since the drivers behind ID are fundamental Christians (remember the Wedge letter?) then they must prove the designer is the God or something else. Hindu god/s or aliens maybe? So go to it guys discuss amongst the other religions and include Scientologists I look forward to the repeatable tests for these ......Good Luck.

My money is on the aliens.

The first post (by maracas) in response to this article said it all. I just want to be counted as someone who would be totally opposed to the introduction of this sort of stuff into schools. Fanatics always seem to want to get at our kids - leave them alone, they have got enough to contend with!

Is the conjectured designer in the likeness of man? Might his/her/its intelligence ever be intelligible to us mortals? Is the designer mortal? Why might this be God/Allah/Yahweh? Could there be multiple designers? If so, does each have the same kind of intelligence? Beliefs about these questions are religious or atheistic and belong in the religion part of school curricula (if there's a consensus for inclusion).
The schools I know encourage students to speculate about all kinds of issues and to consider evidence from multiple sources.
As a daily observer of teaching practice in public and private schools, Brian's second last paragrah reads to me like a conspiracy "theory"(!). I know of no school curriculum that uses evolution to advocate atheism. I do know of schools that now use ID to support religious belief. Evolution is in science curricula because it's more useful in developing our understanding of fashionable science than astrology, or intelligent design or ESP, or improving road safety by increasing speed limits, or all the other ideas that might possibly be proved true, some day, somehow. Like most things in education, curricula err on the conservative side of things much more than the radical.

It's not worth debating these points.

In maths I expect maths to be taught.
In English class, I expect English to be taught.
In science class, only science should be taught.
(Be it evolution, physics, biology or chemistry)

Science teachers have little time to convey a large area of study. I would expect them to concentrate on the established position and the "hot issues" within each field.

Those who want to discuss the possibility, ramifications and so forth of a deity can do so in classes on religion and philosophy.

In either case - the possibility of a creator is an old one and a simple one. Kids will surely come up with without any help, and will (hopefully) ask the tough questions anyway.