"The religios say they want equal time for their crackpottery.

Maybe we should give them equal time.

The story of evolution is not only great science; it's a compelling human tale. For sheer drama and wonderment it eclipses anything to be found in any so-called "holy book." The cast of characters ranges from the 17th Century monk, Nicholas Steno to 2006 Nobel laureate Andrew Fire and beyond. All of them are larger than life figures.

The story of evolution may be the greatest story never told.

So let's have the debate. Let protagonists from each side write chapters in science textbooks. Let them debate in front of the kids.

You know what? I think the religios are bluffing. I think they would never dare to submit their "holy" texts to the kind of scrutiny that would entail.

But if they do, BRING IT ON."

That is a new suggestion that I haven't seen before from an atheist. Generally atheists fight tooth and nail to prevent the debate being aired in front of the kids. Indeed, subject to your attitude toward evolution and religion, what you are suggesting is something often suggested (albeit in reverse) by the relevant "religios". They claim that atheists object to such a comparison because they are scared to compare what "religios" consider good science with what they consider bad science. You by contrast claim that "religios" are bluffing and a comparison should be made to show them up.

I wonder if your viewpoint will catch on.

Vanilla, I'm sorry you fail to realise that intelligent design principles are already taught in University under architecture, mechanics, physics, bio-mechanics and others. Principles of design in natural physics give guidance to man's creativity in all sorts of fields. Science has developed most things from observation of already created principles of design. Very little in these fields are learned in RE.

You said, "Teaching kids intelligent design as part of the science curriculum would be an absolute abomination against science and reason and truth. They can, of course, safely learn all the theories in RE."

CJ Morgan,

You raise an interesting point. Odd as it seems I'd never given much thought to Jewish teaching on evolution. Most of the Jews I associate with are secular and have no objections to evolution. I know orthodox Jews but cannot recall ever having discussed evolution with any of them. When we have discussed religion evolution has never come up.

It turns out you are correct. Some orthodox sects have ideas about evolution that are as wacky as any I've heard expressed by Muslim and Christian Fundamentalists.

Well spotted.

Boazy, ok matter/energy, whatever, same point - no difference.

You are now arguing nonsense with trying to differentiate your "adaptation of species through natural selection" from SPECIATION. You have made it quite clear though that you do not believe in SPECIATION, ie. the diversification of species through time. Which is required for evolution from simple single celled organisms through to distant prehistoric mammals and then to humans and other modern organisms. Abiogenesis is not required for this theory to be valid and workable in a scientific sense, and while many researchers are investigating the mechanics of such a phenomenon, the theory of evolution (speciation) through natural selection can stand up without having to explain that particular part. Scientists still don't know yet how many genes/proteins are minimally required to make a viable prokaryotic cell (which makes any ID calculations nothing more than bad guesswork), but they are currently working on it through synthetic chromosomes and gene "knockout" technology etc.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence that shows increasing complexity of organisms and their changing through time through the fossil record. What there isn't evidence for is that dogs/mammoths/horses/whatever existed all at once in an earlier time (like the dinosaur dominated periods) and just changed a little through to modern times, such as you are suggesting with "adaptation".

Either way, you had better brush up on the subject if you are going to attempt to debate about it, MAAAATE. Because it is patently obvious that you you know a great deal more about ancient middle-eastern tribal stories than you do about modern science. In fact, I would wager that you probably don't even know how a "species" is defined, and I don't mean by a dictionary.

"Vanilla, I'm sorry you fail to realise that intelligent design principles are already taught in University under architecture, mechanics, physics, bio-mechanics and others. Principles of design in natural physics give guidance to man's creativity in all sorts of fields. Science has developed most things from observation of already created principles of design. Very little in these fields are learned in RE."

No need to be for false apologies Philo - I'm happy to hear whatever evidence you have. What intelligent design principles are used in those arenas? And in what way are the principles specific to intelligent design, rather than just examples of man borrowing from designs found in nature? Or are you arguing that finding designs in nature *is* intelligent design?

Bugsy,

A very nice concise explanation of speciation.

Remarkably, we can actually see speciation in action among cichlids in African great lakes as this New Scientist piece describes.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg16121768.100

These are the kinds of exciting discoveries that I think would ignite the imaginations of kids and kindle a love of science.

Mjpb

I doubt my viewpoint will catch on. Here are some reasons.

--There is a prevailing theory that we should not "confuse" kids. It supposedly makes them feel "insecure." Now I happen to think that sometimes it's a good idea to confuse kids. Life is often confusing and dealing with confusion is an important skill.

--The so-called "science" of the religios is almost too easy to demolish. In the end you will have to say "you would not even be attempting this sort of contorted rationalisation if you weren't trying to prove that your holy book was compatible with science." BOAZ is a perfect example.

--How many religios would truly accept a no holds barred debate about their holy book vs science? Would they really allow you to dis – as they would see it – their holy book in front of their kids? Think Muhammad cartoons.

--There would be a fear that it could lead to religious strife in schools. Actually I think it would teach all kids that people have differing points of view and you have to respect their right to differ even as you think the beliefs themselves are loony tunes. This would be an especially valuable lesson for religios.

--Many science teachers doubt their ability to manage the emotions that would be aroused. In the US they also, to be blunt, fear what I can only call a fundamentalist Christian mob mentality.

But I still think it's a great idea