>Why can't we accept the fact that some people want to be taught that an >alternative view is that creation is by Intelligent Design, and let the kids >decide for themselves based on school teachings and what they receive at >home. > >Yes, it's creationism, but it's not specific to any religion, and therefore >should pass the bar of separation of church/state. It would be inclusive of >the flying spaghetti monster without actually mentioning it by name. > >- Matt
Really, and what demonstratable evidence is there for ID that has been accepted for print in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Does ID offer a more complete explanation of the available data than current theories? what about its hypothesis generating capacities that allow the theory to be adequately tested? Not only in terms of supporting evidence but ID is woefully inadequate as an theory and explanation of the data its supposed to cover. Even at its best, it can only point to certain things and but what about this - for instance the flagellum (spelling?) bacteria. Unfortunately for the IDiots there are far more adequate explanations that have been tested and have found to support the current theories of evolution. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:214027 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
