ID has no evidence to support it, no logically sound arguments. Its success is based on opportunism, intellectual dishonesty and wilful ignorance. In so far as it is falsifiable, ID already has been falsified. But the concept requires very little and this amorphousness makes it impossible for it to be fully debunked.

----
rockhound:
"It is about time that teachers who believe in evolution are brave enough to defend their faith"
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. (From dictionary.com) Ie. the very opposite of science.

"If we compare the way science is taught at universities with almost any other discipline we would have to conclude that scientists are an arrogant bunch."
And mathematicians, doctors and computer programmers...

"From almost the first lecture in law, philosophy, history, religion, etc. students are encouraged to argue their views in the classroom and lecturers are prepared to debate them."
And what do all those subjects have in common? Great big bits that are open to interpretation and opinion. Debate is useful for those early students because detailed knowledge isn't required to have a reasonable opinion and ideology plays a significant role. You can't very well have a undergrad arguing with a professor about the inner workings of atoms, or have maths students questioning Rolle's theorem. They don't have any research, they don't have enough knowledge. Students need to grasp the basics of scientific fields before they can seek out the contentious and the undiscovered, so yeah they need to shut up and learn from the experts. (And learn from pracs.)

"Yet the idea that this universe made itself, and that no god was involved, is a religious position."
No, the idea that this universe made itself is logically contradictory and not a scientific theory. Whether or not a god was involved would be a religious position, but science doesn't deal with that.
----
And what's with all the talk about irreducible complexity?

The confusion and lack of knowledge of evolution as displayed by the IDers to this thread emphasizes the need to separate religion from clear concise scientific study. The discipline and pragmatic approach of scientific inquiry alone is a vital skill to be gained.

I don't have a problem with religion being taught to young children - I attended religious study and at the age of 11 I was able to decide for myself whether to believe in an unsubstantiated faith or the very real evidence based view of our world. At the age of 9 I was given a copy of Darwin's Origin of the Species by my parents because of my interest in the natural environment, this gave me the tools to decide at the age of 11 what made more sense.

My point to this little revelation is that do not underestimate the abilities of children to discern truth. In fact the best B*!!*$#*T detectors are fact, children.

Bored of this topic now

evolution r00lz

Does everybody in this post realise that macroevolution is NOT science? ID is posed as a fill the gaps theory- everything that evolution does not explain, ID supposedly does. But the Big Bang was the original fill the gaps theory- with no proof whatsoever, but a humanist and atheist outlook on life- scientists (not science) posed the theory of the Big Bang to explain what the lack of a Creator could not.

I will reiterate what I posted earlier:
"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."

Deuc: Whether or not a god was involved [in making this world] would be a religious position, but science doesn't deal with that.

Yes to the first part. That means that evolution is a religious position because science does deal with the issue of whether a god was involved. Scientists do not restrict themselves to documenting observations in the present, but speculate about what happened in the unobservable past. The idea of evolution (protozoa turned onto people over billions of years) says that no god was involved. So evolution is a religion (a worldview). Why should people holding one particular worldview have exclusive access to the science classroom to promote their religion

The “no new information created” is a line that gets banned about by creationist and their like. It’s based on the same flawed logic as the old zygote drawings or the moth coloration scam. The mechanisms that “create” new genes are while not very well understood, are developing and our knowledge is deeping and developing all the time. The two methods best understood are new DNA sequences added during copy errors and genes developing new functions. It quite amusing to anyone who uses information theory the blatant misrepresentation of the field by Creationist, all most as amusing as their use of the “law” of thermodynamics. The fact that Ider’s wish to argue the science in the public arena rather then science journals simply demonstrates their real agenda. One hundred years ago heredity was irreducible complex.