I agree with others on this thread that ID should be taught in schools - but in classes on religion, as with creationism, ID is faith based and not evidence based. I support its teaching because I believe that we should have a full understanding of human nature and religion is a part of that for many people.

It should never be taught as a valid alternative to science as there is no solid evidence or a continuum of observable facts for either ID or creationism. It undermines scientific inquiry to have it included in science classes.

In "Show Me the Science"
By DANIEL C. DENNETT

He describes how the hoax of ID has been presented as a valid scientific hypothesis and why it is simply an attempt by the religious to undermine scientific research.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Thanks to science I have glasses with which to read, good health care, an understanding of my inherited geneology and an appreciation of the natural world and the expectation with science that the more we learn the more we will need to explore. Science is infinite, religion is stagnant. Science fills me with hope. Religion is a dead end. I do not say this to be deliberately offensive to those with religious convictions - it is my world view and I am just as entitled to state it as are those of you who like to spout religious texts. I will not enter into any debate that religion is any more than superstition. I have agreed that religion (all religions) should be taught in schools and that should be good enough.

I ask the question:
How has the theory of evolution benifited us scientifically?

It merely represents a theoritical history of the Universe and a philosophy of no intelligent Designer. So should be confined also to classes on history and philosophy / religion.

Philo – evolution has benefited us by providing us with a wealth of knowledge about how the world works. For example, have you heard of antibiotic-resistant bacteria? Know how they became antibiotic-resistant? Evolution. It's happening all around you whether you realize it or not. And its very applicable in many fields of scientific research.

The best scientific minds in the world have discussed and debated evolution, according to scientific principles, for over 100 years. To call it ‘just a theory’ is like calling Einstein a 'bit of a smartass'.

(ref: www.straightdope.com)

"A fact still unproven, it is based upon asumption" [Philo talking about Evolution].

To me, believing in something unproven is faith. If faith is not to be taught in science class, than lets not teach the Big Bang, 6 days Creation, or any other faith system that poses some some sort of unsupported, untestable and unprovable scientific hypothesis on the origin of life.

Sincerely,
YngNLuvnIt

The best part about the article.. was its HONESTY :).. amazing stuff.
A very high 'wow' factor there.

Very happy to see at least a modicom of acceptance by some who I might not have expected it from, for being taught in comparative religion or social type classes.

I fully realize that aspects of evolutionary theory are correct, natural selection being one of the most obvious. But that true aspect does not explain so much, it just shows how species adapt.

ID is actually based on evidence, that being 'irreducable complexity'.

I know this is challenged, and I can even see how the challenge has a small degree of merit, but 2 factors make me quite skeptical about the scientific honesty of the 'evolution is the only way' school, and these are they:

1/ The author of this article brought out how the main contributor to the evolutionary impetus was theological. As soon as one can disconnect society from the belief in God, and His creation, it opens up many 'interesting' possibilities, as Sartre said ..".. But God is not, so all things are morally permissable"

2/ The way Prof Sternberg was 'burnt at the stake' by the Smithsonian institute for even allowing a pro ID article in the biological journal.

I smell a bit of 'ego protecting territoriality' in a lot of this.

Given that most peoples thinking reflects their educational experience, I also venture a degree of wonderment about 'who' is speaking when 'pro-evolution/anti ID' proponents talk.

I would suggest that it is philosophically imperitive to have a belief in God, and creation. The abundance of existential writers who openly admit that the alternative is total despair (for the honest thinker)and a meaningless, nihilistic existence.

But in most cases, culture comes to the rescue, and appears to offer re-assurance of meaning, people retreat into the foetal comfort of the cultural ambionic fluid, with folk denying the philosophical reality and choosing to believe otherwise.

I rather love the certainty of "I came, that they might have life"

Well! I'm glad to see that at least most people here seem to accept that evolution happened in history.

As a scientist, I do not believe in ID. Of course, I have no real objection to it being taught in schools, as long as it REMAINS ID. I really do think that this will be used as an excuse to bring religion in to the class room.

Many (not all, I know, but many) IDers say "An intelligent creator" but what they really mean is "God, our God, the god of chrisitianity, you know, the god that did the flood and the Eden and all that," and before you know it.... Religion in the class room! Good "God" no.

I prefer my states secular and non-religious, with freedom of religion. ID is a theory (although really it has no evidence, or at least, much less evidence than evolution has) and people need to be careful or it will be hijacked by the Religious to bring God into the classroom.