Religion > Science before the church started excommunicating people for saying the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe, it's a completely invalid argument.
I still don't hold that ID is a science, all the proof being shown on here is either to the credit or discredit of evolution, I still haven't seen any evidence for or against ID, which still makes it a faith matter, not a scientific theory. Evolution has stood up to the test of time, quite literally, for years, it has been constantly attacked and innumerable attempts have been made to discredit the theory. Sometimes, do a degree, they have suceeded and the theory has had to be changed slightly in light of new facts.
Creationism does not, and will not, and, to the eyes of those who believe it, cannot change to accomodate new facts, those new facts must be wrong, simply because they don't agree with the 'theory'.
Evolutionists will be the first to admit that they don't have the whole picture, we are, after all, dealing with billions of years and maybe 2% of everything that died created a fossil of some kind, and that's not including the erasure of evidence by erosion, tectonics etc, there are, without a doubt, millions of species that existed and are now extinct, that we will never know of because nothing remains of them. So no, science is not saying that Evolution is the answer, Evolution is simply a way of wording the question.
However, if in court, someone provided tons of evidence including a bloody knife, fingerprints, telephone records, and the entire defence was 'God did it, look, this book in it's 50th re-write says so!'. I know what side of the argument my 'faith' falls on, not because I hate religion or creationism particuarly, but simply because I find evolution a lot more feasible, and sensible.
Anyway, the question here is not 'Did the Bible say stuff that science later confirmed?' which it did, but then, the Ancient Persians were predicting Lunar Eclipses and working out the distance to the nearest planets whilst Christ was alive, and it is widely accepted, even in the scientific circles, that the Great Flood more than likely occured etc. The question here is 'Should ID, which has no tangible evidence to support it, only what it considers evidence to attack Evolution with, be taught in a Science Class?'. For me, the answer is 'No'. Considering, out of equal opportunities, we would also have to consider that the Universe may have been made out of some Gods Gonads or excreted from an Orofice somewhere etc.
Witches used to be burned at the stake for daring to try and heal people whom only God had 'right' to heal. Are we to, once again, have to start defending people from a Despotic church that want's to control every aspect of our lives whilst remaining bloated and seperate from reality?
Yes, evolution can be scary to people who have spent their whole lives believing the Earth was created, it is a massive, living, changing, and, dare I say it, evolving theory, it changes as new pressures are applied, and facts are proved/disproved etc.
I remember one argument for ID being a neolithic handprint that stretched across two rock strata that according to science took millions of years to form. It was the ignoring of obvious fact, the playing on peoples ignorance, that put ID on the bad side of me, it's not science, it felt more like sideshow sleight of hand.
Anyway, I do agree with Stealth that it's pointless people PMing him and saying 'We're with you!', if you're with him, stand up and be counted, if you consider people not agreeing with you as flaming, then you need to be a bit more secure in your belief, Stealth is doing a good, and very mature job of defending himself against superior numbers, and even though I don't agree with him, I respect that.
