hi again David,

You're the epitome of grace under pressure. Point taken, but I think we're speaking at cross-purposes here.

Please note - I.D. is not a theory. You are being disingenuous to call it such.

Scientists are not debating between themselves the validity or otherwise of the theory of evolution. There is no controversy in in the scientific world regards the development over time of the traits of today's living creatures - size, number of appendages, colour etc.

That human beings originated via evolution is the ONLY theory supported by observation and evaluation of our surrounds. This is the dispassionate view. Human beings have so many commonalities with what are called our close relatives, and a number of features that in the absence of divine intervention can only be interpreted as vestiges of an earlier form. Tailbones. Appendices. Hairy bodies. Instinct for sex and survival. Until I.D. can suggest a MORE credible scenario for these it won't be taken seriously. Evolutionary theory theory fits. Beautifully. Simply. Elegantly. Occam's razor. A religious dimension simply is not required, and I believe this is what motivates you.

I.D. needs to stand on its own feet rather than rest on spurious doubts generated by slick marketing. Again, the only controversy here is that it is being taken seriously by educationists.

You're right in saying it's a matter of faith, though in scientific terms the basis of evolutionary theory is referred to as 'overwhelming evidence'. It can't be proven, as you say. The big bang can't be proven either, but no-one with a basic understanding of science takes on face value alone the suggestion that genesis is factual

All this monkeying around in the family tree by the intelligent designers might give them pleasure; but it will make no difference whatever to our family tree.

Regarding faith ... There seem to me to be two kinds of faith. The first is blind faith, believing what you have heard or read with no supporting evidence in your own experience. The "only believe, don't question" kind of faith, which in my view does not promote spiritual development and may well be harmful.

The second is where you have faith because your experience supports and validates whatever you have faith in. For example, I have faith in my teacher, S N Goenka, and what he teaches - the Buddha Dhamma, Vipassana - because (1) I have experienced the benefits which he suggests the practice of Vipassana would bring (as far as my modest debvelopment permits); (2) because he epitomises the love, compassion, wisdom and selfishness which the practice is designed to develop; (3) because the practice is logical and rational, with theory and practice going hand in hand; and (4) because everything Goenka has said which I have been able to test for myself has been true. This experience-based faith helps you to work with confidence, it fosters spiritual development. It's more akin to science than it is to blind faith.

In respect of educating my own children, I have taught them to think for themselves, to be open and curious. I haven't pushed Vipassana or the Buddha's teaching, the children have my wife and I as examples and seem to accept and practice our moral code because they can compare the results in terms of their parents and others of various/no beliefs/practices (and one went to a Christian high school). I don't think having ID in the classroom would have helped them, as uni students they observe the debate and reject ID.

Too many public schools seem to push a biased agenda, let's aim at encouraging a joy in learning and a critical ability without imposing views on children. I can't see where ID fits in to that.

sorry, "selflessness", not "selfishness"

Alan Grey,
I have to agree with your position. I will not accept anything merely by faith that I do not consider reasonable or closest to the facts. Same with science theory one believes what is most likely the facts. There is no dichotomy between faith and reason. Those that dismiss ideas with emotive language show they will not evaluate it a possibility before dismissing it as unreasonable.

Anyone involved in developing a business realises that initially it is faith that grows the business. Unless you believe in the idea no one else will either, yet there is no cold evidence to demonstrate that the business is a success. Though faith believes that the business is a good proposition because all the reasons are there for it to succeed. Yet there is not factual evidence of its success.

rancitas, I don't believe you saw God driving the GTHO, the designer rarely drives what he designs, to lay to rest a myth, concerning Holden drivers, I drive a Holden, and am happy with my car, I have always been a Holden man, however, in my humble opinion, the only vehicle that comes close to a Ford Falcon GTHO Phase 3, is a GTS Monaro of the same year. Note I said "close", the HO is my favourite of all time I don't quite know how you managed to get the conversation on to classic cars from evelution, v ID but you bought back a lot of happy memories for me, thank you! back to the subject, I am a Christian, who has an open mind, and I believe both ideas should be put to children, for them to make up their own minds, I know what I believe, but religion to me is a personal choice, not to be pushed on to others, but presented along with other ideas, for individuals to come to their own conclusions, which won't happen, if they are ignorant of all options, thus ID should have a place in school in my opinion, but neither should be taught as fact, and ID may be better suited to RE than science class.