[Rembrandt_fan]

I'm both conservative and Christian, and think this Intelligent Design business has no place in a public school classroom. Darwin's theories, as I understand them, based on those few works of his I have read, do not address the existence or nonexistence of a Creator. In a forward to an edition of 'Origin of Species' published in his lifetime, Darwin says so outright. Proponents of Intelligent Design, on the other hand, at least inasmuch as I can understand their arguments, claim the notion of a Creator (of some suitably vague, politically acceptable sort) should be offered as an alternative viewpoint to Darwin's evolutionary theory. Since Darwin is neutral on the subject of a guiding, creating intelligence, then how can Intelligent Design be its alternative? Essentially, those promoting Intelligent Design are using his theory as a straw man. Why? As a reaction, I suppose, to the stifling of religious expression in public venues by the courts, among other things. People who feel their most heartfelt beliefs are under assault tend to fight back with whatever is at hand--in this instance, the weapon happens to be Creationism cloaked in scientific-sounding jargon. Such a reaction is understandable, but understanding does not imply agreement.

Darwin's theories are not an argument against the existence of God, and the Old Testament is not a science textbook. Further, one can be a conservative and still think Creationism has no place in public schools. You want your kids taught that the Book of Genesis is the literal truth? Fine. But not in a school paid for by my taxes.

[NewRomeTacitus]

Post #35 - well said. There's a definite line between what's provenly known and what is theory. It is to our misfortune that so much money and fame is able to be had for spreading theories the populace feels "more comfortable with" without a shred of evidence to back them up.

Never let actual facts stand between an otherwise skill-less academic and a sought after tenure.