SM,
I know of no instance where Christians have tried to impose intelligent design on an education system as some kind of fact. I know plenty of educators who have asked or are asking for the freedom to critique and question evolution and be allowed the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. I could not imagine why you or anyone would object to this.

Not necessarily, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Evidence of design necessarily implies a designer.<<

Evidence is too broad a term to be of much use here. There may be evidence of suicide, for example, in the fact that the body of a man lies on the floor in a pool of blood with a hole in his head, a gun next to the body and a suicide note on the table. On its own, the scenario is evidence that he took his own life.

Alternatively, because I was aware that the individual had mortal enemies, I might view the body as evidence of murder. But until the rest of the picture is complete through forensic analysis, murder remains only one possibility.

So I am able, categorically, to state that evidence of murder does not necessarily imply that there is a murderer. In the same vein, I can categorically state that evidence of design does not necessarily imply that there is a designer.

Because what we are really talking about is proof, isn't it. Proof of our murder/suicide comes later, after all the evidence has been fully examined. Equally, proof of "design" doesn't arise from a selective view of one category of evidence.

Furthermore, the quality of that evidence needs to be examined too. And for every contention by the creationist brigade that "here is evidence of design", there is an equally cogent and reasoned explanation that design is in the eye of the beholder, not in the object itself. In other words, that the assumption that a designer exists is a prerequisite to identifying the "designed" element itself. Absent that presumption, there are plenty of equally acceptable hypotheses of how it came to be.

Incidentally, where is that "fact-based evidence" you were talking about?

>>You have been presented with fact based evidence from believers on this thread<<

I'm all ears.

DSM,

Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (400 F. Supp. 2d 707, Docket no. 4cv2688) was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design.[1] In October 2004 the Dover Area School District changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory

United States Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which barred the teaching of "Creation Science" in public schools as breaching the separation of church and state.

A six-week trial over the issue yielded “overwhelming evidence” establishing that intelligent design “is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory,” said Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.

I.e. there is no science in creationism or intelligent design, and teaching them as science is fundamentally wrong.

Shadow Minister

Several issues with your post of 28th Oct:

1. You are referring to the limited process of evolution within a species. That process is not a proxy for evolution between species.

2. It is up to the proponents of the hypothesis of inter-species evolution to apply scientific method to prove it. Darwin did not prove it. In the years since then, millions -- regardless of how brilliant they were -- have tried, but the best they could do was assert. Assertion is not science.

3. With regard to how life started and led to the evolution of all living species , Dawkins put it down to chance, which has extremely long odds you must admit.

4. No one has come up with proof that God does not exist. Thus, acceptance of evolution theory remains for many a convenient alternative to believing in God.

I think you will find that the intelligent design movement has learnt from this setback, Shadow Minister, and has revised its position accordingly.

Gone is the idea that intelligent design should be "taught". Instead, we now have the appeal to fairness, allowing the presentation of intelligent design to be put alongside "Darwinian evolution" as an equally valid proposition.

"Instead of mandating intelligent design, the major pro-ID organizations seek to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks by teaching students about both scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution."

http://www.intelligentdesign.org/education.php

Clever, eh?

Those "scientific strengths and weaknesses". Sounds almost convincing, doesn't it? They have even created the "Centre for Science and Culture" to add to the veneer of legitimacy. Who have produced a "Briefing Packet"...

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1454

The core of their argument rests on the introduction of two entirely invented components - "specified complexity", the thought-child of one William Dembski, and "irreducible complexity", a term concocted by Michael Behe. Neither has the remotest scientific validity, but are presented as the reasons why their ID fantasy should be validly compared with evolution theory.

It's what I call the phlogiston effect. Invent a substance that fits a narrow band of observations, and claim it to be the goods.

And all the while standing on the soap-box that "questioning" evolution is "in the interests of science". Which it is. But to use it as a lever with which to slide into the discussion a theory that relies upon the invention of pseudo-science is entirely invalid.

Raycom,

1. You are referring to the limited process of evolution within a species.
- No I wasn't. Sufficient change within a species overtime produces animals that are incompatible with others previously of the same species. E.g.Lions and Tigers are different species, but sufficiently close that Ligers can be bred, but have genetic problems and are generally sterile.

2. It is up to the proponents of the hypothesis of inter-species evolution to apply scientific method to prove it.
- No it isn't. If the fossil records comply with the theory, then the theory remains robust. Genetic and fossil records have so far agreed with the theory. Until this changes, evolution remains the best explanation.
PS there is tonnes of proof that the theory of creation is at best a fairy tale.

3. With regard to how life started and led to the evolution of all living species , Dawkins put it down to chance, which has extremely long odds you must admit.
- So what! the genetic lottery that made me from all the combinations of sperm and egg is 1 to trillions. As yet I haven't disappeared in a puff of logic.

4. No one has come up with proof that God does not exist. Thus, acceptance of evolution theory remains for many a convenient alternative to believing in God.
- No one has yet proven that God does exist. No one has proven that the tooth fairy does not exist either.