On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 07:36:38 -0700, "Jeff McCann"
<NoSpam@NoThanks.org> wrote:

(snips)

Personally, I see the hand of God at work in the process of evolution, and
therefore lean towards Intelligent Design, but that's just my opinion.  The
"scientific method" has helped us unravel the intricacies of the
evolutionary process, and all that we have learned shows that "science" is
generally on the right track with the theory of evolution.  There is much
left to learn, and there are still thorny problems to solve, but I see no
reason to discard the theory in toto.

I see no reason to discard the theory at all.

Since the "theory of evolution" is, thus far, supported by the most current
science, and courses in biology are "science" courses, I see no reason not
to teach evolution in them.  Conversely, since ID, no matter how you dress
it up, is a faith based belief contrary to the current state of scientific
knowledge, I see no reason to teach it in a science class.  It's true that
there are some mighty big holes in the science of evolution,

What are those?

but the valid
criticisms of the current theory don't disprove it, and certainly don't
support ID as a scientifically valid "alternative theory."

Like evolution, physics is full of contradictions and conundrums, and all
the details are a long way from being worked out.  So why don't we teach an
"alternative theory" in physics classes?  After all, doesn't "Magic" offer a
better and more complete explanation of things we don't understand?  Maybe
we should teach "Alchemy" as an "alternative theory" to inorganic chemistry,
too?  Astrology instead of Astronomy?  Demonic Possession instead of
Abnormal Psychology?

I'm sure we'll see people seriously advocating all the
above.  Oh well...

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/