[thinkster]

Obviously, the ADL needs to correct its terminology. Creationism, intelligent design, evolution, big-bang, as well as any and all other theories of origin are all religious in that nobody was there to witness the event. Neither can the event be recreated in the lab. Evolution, as well as Creationism/intelligent design are thereby accepted by faith. The fact of origins can be interpreted either with evolutionary or creation explanations, both belief systems have evidence which support their respective schools of thought. School children should be taught more than one view (evolution) of origins, and be able to make an informed decision as to which belief system the will choose to live with. As creation scientist Dr. Kent Hovind likes to say; evolutions believe 'in the beginning...dirt,' creationists believe 'in the beginning...God.' Nuff said!

[spqrzilla9]

creation scientist Dr. Kent Hovind

A degree mill from someone's basement in Colorado Springs.

[concerned about politics]

Not only am I for teaching creation, I'm for posting the Ten Commandments. Why? Kids might read them, that's why.
Look what has happened because they haven't read them !!!

[montag813]

Abe Foxman of the ADL is a scumbag, and was one of those left-wing commie dog Jews who lobbied for the Marc Rich pardon. I know several Jews who used to give him money when he hunted Nazis and skinheads, but have cut him off after finding out just what a dirtbag he is, and how he works to undermine religion. Ignore his rantings. No one will listen to him.

[SJackson]

Obviously, the ADL needs to correct its terminology.

They've been effective fighting anti-semitism. This is not their role, the "terminology" of the issue shouldn't even be there to correct.

[SJackson]

Obviously, the ADL needs to correct its terminology.

They've been effective fighting anti-semitism. This is not their role, the "terminology" of the issue shouldn't even be there to correct.

[RAT Patrol]

How scary. Teaching kids to think and reason? We can't have it! They are too, too busy learning about homosexuality and condoms to mess with different origin theories.

[Khepera]

Religious folk don't think the ADL should be in charge of education. I believe Homeschooling to be optimal.

[arielb]

Intelligent design isn't taught in public schools thanks to the same people who are against teaching long division or phonics or opposing views on global warming

[Chairman Fred]

What is all the more remarkable is, I know a rabbi at a very Reform synagogue, and he once asked, How can posting the Ten Commandments in school possibly be a danger to the Jews? How , then, can teaching the possibility of "intelligent design" be a threat to the ADL?

[steenkeenbadges]

Neither side has "proof", but unfortunately for them it's only the Darwinists who require it. Two questions: 1) If nobody witnessed creation, how can they "prove" it wasn't done by intelligent design? 2) If species "evolved" over millenia, going through minute changes inch by inch, where is the fossil record of all these billions and billions of intermediary creatures as they "evolved" ever so gradually from one form to another?

[Jeff Gordon]

ID is mearly an evolutionary mutation of the Creationist Virus. It evolved as a defense against the Science Anti-Virus. It has most of the same DNA as the Creationist Virus but it also contains some cloaking material so that it can look like science to the untrained eye or weak mind.

The very fact that the ID Virus exists gives credit to and proof of the concept of evolution. Evolution says that species evolve for survival. This is exactly what we have here.

[agarrett]

Obviously, the ADL needs to correct its terminology. Creationism, intelligent design, evolution, big-bang, as well as any and all other theories of origin are all religious in that nobody was there to witness the event. Neither can the event be recreated in the lab. Evolution, as well as Creationism/intelligent design are thereby accepted by faith.

  OK, let me just point out that this definition of science is so reductive as to be idiotic. Astonishingly, something can be scientific even if it is neither observed nor repeated in the lab. Science consists of taking pieces of evidence that you can observe, and putting them together into a coherent (hopefully) theory, which in turn can make predicitions that can also be tested.

  Being concrete here, let's look at astronomy. We have solid models of solar dynamics (how the Sun works). I think it can go without saying that we have never been to the Sun, nor have we inserted any instrument packets into it. We have some good observations of the outside of the Sun, of course. And we've got experiments in plasma physics that we believe are relevent. We have put these together into models that make sense based on what we know, and use them to model Solar processes. We talk confidently about hot spots, convection, and the age of the Sun. And I defy you to call it faith instead of science.

  So at least get your basic premise correct when you start an argument.

Drew Garrett