I was taught in school that evolution was the natural process by which we got to this point and on it I was examined. My children and grandchildren were also and are taught and examined on the subject at their schools. However neither I nor one of them believe it has all the answers as it does not demonstrate all the facts. Did knowing two possibilities damage them? No! They became better informed of two possibilities as explanations of how we got to here. All this emotive censorship protectionism that their childs mind will be ruined if taught ID is absolute nonsence, it broadens their mind to think of other possibilities. That is education!

I worked for 12 years for Alexander Boden who was Australia's leading industraial chemist in the 1960 - 1985. He was the authorised writer of school science text books also international post-graduate lecturer in his specialties and joining with Kevan and Khan wrote on all science subjects for school text. He was a devout Christian and gave respect for God in his texts. Though his texts taught natural evolution and his faith was in God, the teaching of evolution did not disturb his mind or evolution his faith in God. Great men do not have closed minds or censor others right to examine all possibilities. Educate and broaden your mind!

There are far too many scientists that are tunnel visioned. Those that advocate ID suggest that "God" is the only answer. If there is a "God", he is not from this planet, so therefore he is an extra-terrestial. - Now is there only one ET out there or are there millions? - We don't know.

One of the "Gods" I am aware of is the one in the "Hebrew Bible"(the Torah). This states(see Genisis) that he is the "God" for the decendents of Adam. Therefore ONLY the "God" of the Jewish race. IF he created Adam and Eve "in his own image", he would have to be humanoid and needed a "chariot of fire" to get around. And if he created Adam and Eve, we would call it "cloning" today, especially as Eve was "cloned" from Adam's rib.

It is possible that "God" created heaven ON Earth in 6 days and the Jewish race was the LAST race on Earth, because, according to the Old Testament, this happened just over six thousand years ago.

There may have been many races created over the last million years and we might have evolved out of the sea, BUT we don't know.

And if there is a "God", why do we have to worship him/her ?

It's about time mankind did some thinking outside of the square.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side: Aristotle 384 BC—323 BC

Aristotle, as one of the worlds great thinkers understood the usefulness of religion to control the masses. Fear of the Gods was used by the high priests in ancient Inca and Mayan civilizations who concocted rites of human and animal sacrifice to ‘appease the Gods’

Contemporary leaders , Bush and Howard claim support from God, They are regular church goers and are modern examples of Aristotle’s assertions . The reciting of the Lords Prayer by our parliaments at the commencement of sittings is an example of our leaders seeking to receive the blessing of God in their deliberations……absolute hypocricy .

ID seeks to perpetuate the belief in Creation and Christian religion as a counter to non creationist philosophy that is allied to Science and Scientific teachings. They are seeking to turn back history to the time Charles Darwin introduced ‘Origin of Species through Natural Selection” Darwin was attacked and Vilified then and his theory is still being challenged by creationists today despite the fact that Charles Darwin did not claim knowledge about the origin of life..That is an ongoing quest which will not be settled with I D. Creationists want to introduce their ideology into school curriculum in an endeavour to revive flagging religious congregations.

About 7 years ago, I was on my son’s school council. We received a request from a catholic parent to introduce RI. We canvassed the school community and there was no other interest. On the other hand there was stiff opposition. We realized parents who wanted their children to have RI enrolled them in their appropriate denominational school.
So the choice is clear…..Parents who wish their children to be exposed to pseudo science in ID can do so by sending their children to denominational schools thus leaving State Schools I D free.

I always thought that the primary objective of scientific enterprise was to try to problems naturally, not just say, OK, this is intelligently designed, so let's give up because there is a higher being at work here somewhere.(ie, God or Aliens)

One of silly assumptions of ID propoenents is that science advocates atheism. Most big bang theorists are in awe of creationism and thus the meaning of life, the universe and everything in it.

Here's a piece of good humor from that seminal piece of work created by Douglas Adams.(Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

""Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this:

"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."

"But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."

"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic.""
--THGT

Wow! What a silly article and most of these posts are so typical of the limitations we have as a species, to separate our explanations from our beliefs.

For me the great twist in the article itself is: "that the universal experience of mankind is that everything that exists has a cause." Surely, this is the classic philosophical proof that Intelligent Design is invalid. And the irony from science is that current theories in quantum physics dispense with the notion of causation as it is commonly understood.

The intelligent design “debate” is entirely political in character. The arguments and slogans are political in character. The title says “scientists afraid of finding the truth?” No, this debate is about what our children should be taught.

If we want our children to be taught science, then its science we should teach them. If this was about philosophy class there’d be no debate.

Intelligent Design is in opposition to science, a reaction to it. It says things like “it is not possible to explain how [sight] could have developed step-by-step by chance”. An atheist may ask how does God see? But this too misses the point of science. Science takes us (or should take us) to wherever the evidence leads us.

I don’t believe any scientist would object to teachers explaining to students the flaws and difficulties of the evolutionary theory, or for that matter, any other theory. The flaws are the great engine of scientific endeavour.

A final point, those on my side of the argument need not worry about the dangers of intelligent design in the classroom. Evolution will take care of it in one way or another.

You who object to Intelligent Design being taught in schools, because you say it is not science, yet are willing to believe scientific concepts like infinity that underpin science but transcend your comprehension, are you going to remain so singleminded in your objections that you deny others hearing anything more than what conforms to your understanding?