Lots of interesting points being argued, some rational some not; the one and only thing for certain is the inevitability of disagreement.

To make my position clear, I have a notion -- call it a tentative hypothesis - in which I suspect there is a 'central organising force' to the universe; one which we mere humans may never understand except as a mathematical equation some time in the distant future.
My tentative hypothesis cannot be tested by any currently known means; so it cannot be an hypothesis and certainly not a theory, so it has no SCIENTIFIC basis.

Should any religious or other non-scientific social group propose to pass on or teach my notion to others I would have no objection -- so long as it is presented as a notion and NOT as science.

The proposal, by the author of the originating article for this thread, that Intelligent Evolution should be taught within a science curriciculum is very unintelligent and must be rejected by all who understand that science is the search for truth.

Interesting reasoning there maracas. So are you saying you only exposed them to one theory in order to avoid brainwashing? Shouldn't exposing them to multiple theories thereby enable them to make an informed decision (evolution, ID, or whatever) and therefore avoid this problem?

No matter how its proponents try to dress it up, "Intelligent Design" is little more than a clever re-badging of Christian Creationism, "designed" to appear more palatable to a secular society. Those who refer to the "Wedge" are quite correct: this ID nonsense is the thin end of the wedge by which religious fundamentalists wish to impose their belief system on the rest of us, via the impressionable minds of school students.

As a parent and former scientist, I am alarmed that our Federal Education minister seems receptive to proposals to have this drivel taught alongside evolution by natural selection in school science courses.

Why not re-badge the idiotic compulsory religion subjects to which our kids are subjected as introductory philosophy, which might at least provide students with some grounding in the diversity of the foundations of Western thought, which extend far beyond the influence of Christianity - we could start with paganism, move onto the Greeks and Romans, thence to Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

A subject such as this could take kids up to the intellectual watershed of the Enlightenment. This would be very useful for those students who wished to study Arts and/or Humanities at university, but it would also help to alleviate some of the intolerant and ignorant dished out to, say, Muslims in our society. Of course, the syllabus would be very crowded, but there might be room in such a course for a half hour in which to dispose of "Intelligent Design".

It's amazing there are posts here suggesting I.D. is a theory (it isn't); that Darwin was religious (he wasn't, though he was aware of the religious sensibilities of the time); and that I.D. is the only alternative theory alongside creationism that should be taught (my money's on the turtle).

We've had this debate before, peoples. At school it was taught as 'The Enlightenment'

maracas:You say - "you have had your share of zealous dogmatists" Pray tell what would you call your ravings if not zealous dogma?
Evolution has not, can not EVER,EVER be proven.
By the way I'm glad my dad was a fair minded bloke he did not keep me from religion or evolution - but dad trusted and loved his children I guess and wanted us to use our reasoning and brains instead of being dictated too and led by the nose. numbat

The Intelligent Designer responsible for the wonders of DNA, of the eyes of insects and those of mammals etc. was also responsible for the design of the Preying Mantis.
The Preying Mantis can only survive by taking its meals at the expense of other living creatures. There is nothing special about that, but why oh why, has the designer dictated that the victim will be cradled in the mantis' arms to be slowly devoured while still alive.
If ever there was a pervert, it was that designer.