Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

[nwshc]

Should Intelligent Design be teached in public schools along with Evolution?

[redcar]

well here in ireland it is thought alongside it.

[nwshc]

No where should religion be taught in a public school.

[Whisper]

PUBLIC school
if you want to learn about god go to a Catholic School

where they will still teach evolution cause its a FACT
but they will also teach that adam n eve crap

[redcar]

religion should be thought in designated religion class, however over here a lot of schools are run by the church and a majority of the country are catholic, so religion is a very much integrated part of our schooling. however religion in the case of evolution be kept seperate in a religion class.

[kolte]

I think it would only be fair, I see no problem in it.

[Skhorpion]

but lets say someone that jsut came to america from like japan tried to learn intelligent design they wouldnt see how it works and might even fail the class

i think it should be seperate

[kolte]

what? I don't understand what your saying.

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

no

[TheWizard]

I'm for teaching religion in school as long as its my religion. haha :)

[nwshc]

I'm for teaching religion in school as long as its my religion. haha :)
no

[kolte]

I'm for teaching religion in school as long as its my religion. haha :)
no

lol, you are so cruel, lol

[serial-thrilla]

Yea I agree with Josh. only because hes the admin and you are trying to suck up to him.

[redcar]

Yea I agree with Josh. only because hes the admin and you are trying to suck up to him.

he might not be

[kolte]

wow, I'm senseing some tentsion between some folk. breath in breath out people

[serial-thrilla]

wow, I'm senseing some tentsion between some folk. breath in breath out people NEVER!!!

[///James///]

im not compleatly for religion being though in school, however i feel it is good for your growth in your opinion in other people. like after 9/11 there was all the islamic stuff, and i wasnt sure what was true, but then we started religion in secondary school (the school i went to before was a catholic school, there isnt really much of a choice), and i learned more, and its very interesting, aswell as judeaism, buddhism and hinduism. i like finding out about other peoples thinkings

on the other hand, mabey it isnt the best, i know there is some peeople who many would call "bible bashers" who would really take everything in the bible to heart. i dont like that.

anyway, im confused :P just i think to make a clearer understanding of other people, it should be though, it works for me (plus im gettnig A's in it, so it isnt so bad!)

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

Yea I agree with Josh. only because hes the admin and you are trying to suck up to him.

he might not be

god you try to swim against the current with EVERYBODY dont you?

[kolte]

Yea I agree with Josh. only because hes the admin and you are trying to suck up to him.

he might not be

god you try to swim against the current with EVERYBODY dont you?

its better then swimming with a shallow current filled with rocks. Hes expressing his own opionion and not disolving into the crowed. anywho. I don't think they would be teaching any one religion, just hinting the fact that one theroy is evolution, the other is intellegent disign. and then explain both theroys.

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

and thus EXPLAINING A RELIGIOUS THEORY. its not even a theory, its not even science. its not supported by any evidence that can be applied to the scientific method, analyzed, or tested. its heresay. it creationalism tucked into a tight little package thats supposed to be easier for the courts to pass. only like 30 percent of people belive it, but i think around 51% believe creationalism. religious fanatics realized that creationalism wasnt to be taught in schools per the constitution, so now theyre just making bs up that noone believes

[kolte]

"religious fanatics realized that creationalism wasnt to be taught in schools per the constitution"


what, seperation of religion and state was a long LONG way down the road. Prayer in school, etc etc, that was all involved untill the civil rights movment. however, though I don't believe in a god myself, the theroy of intellegent design alongside evolution would let people make their own choice about it. Let people have thier own voice.

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

"religious fanatics realized that creationalism wasnt to be taught in schools per the constitution"


what, seperation of religion and state was a long LONG way down the road. Prayer in school, etc etc, that was all involved untill the civil rights movment. however, though I don't believe in a god myself, the theroy of intellegent design alongside evolution would let people make their own choice about it. Let people have thier own voice.

nonono u misunderstood what i said sorry....

i said that religious fanatics (anyone who practices religion is a fanatic to a degree) realized that creationalism is not allowed to be taught in schools, the supreme court has ruled thats illegal. what people are doing is creating new "theories" that they hope will have a better chance of being accepted, even though its just a spin off of creationalism that even LESS people believe

[Dante]

I personally dont think intelligent design should be taught in schools, well here in the U.S anyways because it is just a scientific version of saying religion, which it clearly states seperation of church and state....so Bush trying to implemnet it, must really think we're as dumb as he is.

[Kiros]

OK, just stop arguing for a moment and let's list the FACTS.

There was nothing, and then there was something.
Something cannot be created out of nothing.
Furthermore, life, itself cannot begin without life already unless extreme, exotic morphism takes place, which we are unsure if it can or can't happen. Once life is existent and stable, micro-evolution can and will occur under entropic conditions.

Now, let's look at the theories...

Evolution states that there was an enormous release of energy and mass, which brought space into perspective. Also, supposedly life was formed by some "primordial soup" and although we've performed situations to recreate the environment, we could ONLY create amino acids - not cells.

Intelligent Design states that everything was designed from an intelligent being or form. In addition, life was created in separate strands for separate environments. It is extremely hard to explain this phenomenon and therefore, most scientists are partial for the evolution theory. Though there are still things we can't comprehend. For example, spontaneous human combustion. Also, until Louis Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation was impossible, everyone believed it to be true - as they weren't ready to accept otherwise.


So now, the facts and theories have been laid down.
Now you have three choices:

(1) Believe Evoluation and have no idea how the "Big Bang" took place and not know how life was actually started.

(2) Believe Intelligent Design and have no idea how some being could create planets and life.

(3) Just don't believe either one and theorize something of your own.


*Note that the "Big Bang" and "Evolution" theories coincide with each other, as do "Creation" and "Intelligent Design"

BTW, I'm for Intelligent Design. :)
I know... I type too much, but I like to get a point through :mrgreen:

//KiroS

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

the fact of evolution has infinately more evidence supporting it becuase the only evidence that intelligent design has is the lack of evidence for evolution. basically, the only way people try to prove intelligent design is by disproving evolution. there is no evidence that actually supports it alone

[Kiros]

And there is no evidence that actually supports Evolution. People have tried to use "Vestigial organs" as proof, but that could have been a microevolution in the species also, if the vestigial organs stayed in that species then why wouldn't it stay in others? When it comes down to it, there is no proof that either one is true - otherwise, they would not be theories.

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

And there is no evidence that actually supports Evolution. People have tried to use "Vestigial organs" as proof, but that could have been a microevolution in the species also, if the vestigial organs stayed in that species then why wouldn't it stay in others? When it comes down to it, there is no proof that either one is true - otherwise, they would not be theories.

no evidence? you must have been asleep in biology class. not only is it the only COMMON SENSE method, it has universal scientific backing. havent u read about the galapagos islands? i know you have. do you know what a fossile is? probably not. you lower the mean average of intelligence on this planet with fanatical theories like believing for instance that one man singlehandedly built a boat so large that a pair of every species on earth could fit inside. its total bullshit

[ThePhantom]

At my old school we had a nice little sticker on teh inside cover of our science textbook basically in a nutshell [ if you had the brains to figure out what the hell they said because of all the big words, (and i think they wanted to make it that way so little kids didnt think about it much)] ''Evolution is a theory not a fact just as religion'' but the religion part was basically made less ovious through big words ...

[ThePhantom]

And there is no evidence that actually supports Evolution. People have tried to use "Vestigial organs" as proof, but that could have been a microevolution in the species also, if the vestigial organs stayed in that species then why wouldn't it stay in others? When it comes down to it, there is no proof that either one is true - otherwise, they would not be theories.

no evidence? you must have been asleep in biology class. not only is it the only COMMON SENSE method, it has universal scientific backing. havent u read about the galapagos islands? i know you have. do you know what a fossile is? probably not. you lower the mean average of intelligence on this planet with fanatical theories like believing for instance that one man singlehandedly built a boat so large that a pair of every species on earth could fit inside. its total bullshit

roflmao dude im with you, kiros no offence but dont be so ignorant to the fact that you are completely wrong...now tell me kiros ... all of this story of Darwin is a tale, a legend, a myth? Just to get us all would up about another way earth might of been created?

Im just one of those people that likes the idea of the big bang theory . . . .

[kolte]

I'm not going to argue the fact of weather or not either thery as any backing. I'n my opionion I don't support either. But do I think they should be tought hand in hand? hell yes i do, its just fair to all people. let the children of america choose what they want to believe becuase they made the choice, not becuase mummy and daddy told them they were somthing. I support free choice, not evolution or god. FREE CHOICE somthing america was founded on, but maybe you all have forgotten that.

[ThePhantom]

the only reason why they dont teach religion is because it has no scientifical evidence, and that would only fit in inside of science class, religion i mean, and hence to evidence means no teaching . . .

koler: i dont want to argue or debate or anythign but what exactly is your religoin? you said it would take a while for you to explain so please do , im a little interested :P

[ThePhantom]

ok withoout reading anythign but the first sentence i have to say that is quiet impossible because there are way too many religions to cover

[ThePhantom]

in response to seperate classes : That is what college is for . . .

[kolte]

the only reason why they dont teach religion is because it has no scientifical evidence, and that would only fit in inside of science class, religion i mean, and hence to evidence means no teaching . . .

koler: i dont want to argue or debate or anythign but what exactly is your religoin? you said it would take a while for you to explain so please do , im a little interested :P

you need not worry about it

[rAp iS MuSiC]

i dont think its fair that people that go to catholic school have to pay for the other people to go to public school through taxes plus pay for their kids to go to catholic school, either give vouchers or give us religion in public schools

[Kiros]

And there is no evidence that actually supports Evolution. People have tried to use "Vestigial organs" as proof, but that could have been a microevolution in the species also, if the vestigial organs stayed in that species then why wouldn't it stay in others? When it comes down to it, there is no proof that either one is true - otherwise, they would not be theories.

no evidence? you must have been asleep in biology class. not only is it the only COMMON SENSE method, it has universal scientific backing. havent u read about the galapagos islands? i know you have. do you know what a fossile is? probably not. you lower the mean average of intelligence on this planet with fanatical theories like believing for instance that one man singlehandedly built a boat so large that a pair of every species on earth could fit inside. its total bullshit

roflmao dude im with you, kiros no offence but dont be so ignorant to the fact that you are completely wrong...now tell me kiros ... all of this story of Darwin is a tale, a legend, a myth? Just to get us all would up about another way earth might of been created?

Im just one of those people that likes the idea of the big bang theory . . . .

Ah, so you think that since fossils exist, that it is solid proof that the evolution theory is completely true? LOL, well I should have guessed... And yes people, no evidence. There is absolutely no evidence. Now scientists looove to point fingers and say "OO OOO Look! They're nearly the same species, but they're not identical! That HAS to be proof that they are evolving!" Wrong, both - in case you only read the first line of every previous post - theories support micro-evolution. Oh, and what's this that has devoloped? You say that COMMON SENSE backs the theory of evolution? HA! Now you have mistaken commen sense for imagination. And for some reason you are using the Galapagos Islands as proof. Just because the islands were full of mocking birds and boobies? Does that proove that evolution took place? Nope. And some scientists support using radiation to measure how old the carbon in something is, but can you go back and actually CHECK this method? Didn't think so. LOL I can't get over the fact that you think fossils are proof that evolution is correct. :P "Cyrus", you do realize that things die, don't you? Isn't this apparent? The creation theory does not dismiss this fact, does it? lol In fact, did you know that creation states that this planet has been around for thousands of years? How could something possibly die, get burried in dirt, and become a preserved set of bones alllll within thousands of years? :roll: Look kids, the fact of the matter is that both Evolution and Creation are THEORIES. No one has been able to PROOVE either one. That is why they are THEORIES. So in other words dont be so ignorant to the fact that you are completely wrong ... OK, since I know that's gonna be a tough concept for you to grasp, how about you actually proove to me that the Evolution theory is correct. Then I'll believe you and that mistaken theory. :)

You may begin...

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

i only read half of whaat you wrote, and only in parts. but somewhere near the middle u asked how fossiles could posssssssssssssibly be made. well guess what, ive seen one, so go blow a goat. besides, eveyrone knows that theres more evidence to support evolution than there is to support creationism, beause the amount of evidence that supports creationism is zero. the bible is not evidence, sorry

[kevin]

"OO OOO Look! They're nearly the same species, but they're not identical!"

use your common sense. What if you didn't know what a car used to be like in the realllly old days, and you only knew what the ones now look like. When you saw the older car, you'd say "OO OOO Look! They're nearly the same thing, but they're not identical!". It's common sense that it changed over time. That's all the evidence you need at this point. Fossils are evidence. You can see the change at different times in the history of the earth. If you really want to beleive that there were that many species that were just different variations of eachother, then sure. Go ahead and think that.

[Whisper]

i only read half of whaat you wrote, and only in parts. but somewhere near the middle u asked how fossiles could posssssssssssssibly be made. well guess what, ive seen one, so go blow a goat. besides, eveyrone knows that theres more evidence to support evolution than there is to support creationism, beause the amount of evidence that supports creationism is zero. the bible is not evidence, sorry

Yea I didn't read any of it
If I want to hear a bunch of myths and lies i'll talk to my local preist while he plays with the alter boys

Evolution has been PROVEN
face it its a fact
Evolution is, has and forever will happen

Adam and Eve is a legend created in the dark age to help people try and understand how they got here to provide them with a false sense of security and to help them deal with the dark and the unknown

They were wrong just like they were wrong about the earth being flat and it being the center of the universe and a ton of other crap that at the time made perfect sense but now we see it for how childish it really is

[kolte]

well, I'm gonna interfgect now and state what I have believed in all along. when peple refere to adam and ever, remember cane went to another villiage and started a family. so right there you see that adam and eve were the first that 'god' made, but there was allready man. its complete bullshit, the entire book is riddled with errors and misinturpitaions of power hungry people. but what do I 'want' to believe. that I was created by a god. what is the hidden truth that I don't wanna except but know is true in the pit of my stomach. we evolved. *sigh*

[bagoslime]

Well i personally go to a private school and i find all the religion crap annoying as hell. thats all they talk about all day. and religion class is the worst... and our teacher is the ultimate hic. ya i live in austin... go to st. gabriels. sux ass man. next year(8th grade) my parents are moving me to hill country i think (its pub) because we really cant afford it anymore and im a bad kid and get into way way way to much trouble at school because its to structured. plus, private schools are like cults.

[RunAwayMolly]

i think both concepts should be taught... but i also think it should be done in a way that allows the students to be open to interpretation... and debate among their peers... i also think reality as an illusion should be discussed...

tho maybe as an elective... because its nothing one needs to know...

[RunAwayMolly]

Well i personally go to a private school and i find all the religion crap annoying as hell. thats all they talk about all day. and religion class is the worst... and our teacher is the ultimate hic. ya i live in austin... go to st. gabriels. sux ass man. next year(8th grade) my parents are moving me to hill country i think (its pub) because we really cant afford it anymore and im a bad kid and get into way way way to much trouble at school because its to structured. plus, private schools are like cults.

well there are reasons its a private religious school... be thankful that your parents are letting you go to a different one since you arent religious (im guessing)

[Whisper]

Hun edit ur last post

[bagoslime]

Well, my family is supposed to be catholic. but we havent been to mass in like 5 years. well, i have to go every wednesday at school, but i dont count that. and i dont want to be religious... i just dont know if i believe in it all.

[Kiros]

:what:

You didn't catch that sarcasm in the fossils statement, did you? And yes, like I said, both theories support micro-evolution.

Now, is that short enough for you to read? :)

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

kiros the only problem people have with creationism is the fucking unprovable RELIGIOUS PART!!!

[Kiros]

Who said anything about religion? :P
Sure, I guess that you could infer it to be religious, but lots of Christians believe in Evolution, just as a lot believe in Creation. In fact, a lot of non-Christians believe in Creation, just as a lot believe in Evolution. Religion doesn't matter, it's just whatever theory your comfortable with.

And you say that there's all this proof about Evolution, and none about Creation, but if you still haven't figured it out - although I've said it twice already - both Evolution and Creation have no proof. That's why they are theories.

Now Matt - if I can call you that - I know that you can let this go... They're both just theories, mate :)

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

i wont let it go, because im trying to save you from stupidity in an effort to make america a better country. and no i dont ever want you addressing me as anything other than my screen name.

trying to say that creation ISNT RELIGIOUS is the biggest fraud of all time, considering the creation theory was CREATED IN THE FUCKING BIBLE. and you call yourself religious? god will probably damn you to hell for dissasociating His word with Him

[nwshc]

And you say that there's all this proof about Evolution, and none about Creation, but if you still haven't figured it out - although I've said it twice already - both Evolution and Creation have no proof. That's why they are theories.
There is a hell of a lot more proof to support Evolution, than Creationism
Don't be a dumb ass.
Creationism is the belief that the universe is so complex, that something of a higher power created it.
Now how the fuck is that proof? I could have said that the Universe was a giant shit I took in a previous life.
Where as Evolution has CREADABLE, SCIENTIFIC evidence that wasn't formed by some douche bag on meth writing a book (the bible)

[redcar]

i am sorry would people please stop slagging religion off. fine you dont believe in it. but others do. ab ti of respect wouldnt go a stray.

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

Who said anything about religion? :P
Sure, I guess that you could infer it to be religious,

INFER IT TO BE RELIGIOUS? just the notion that theres a possibility its NOT religious will land you in hell, mate :mrgreen:

here ill prove to you its religious and any christian who believes in evolution is no better than being atheist.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1043/biblegatewaycompassagelookupge.jpg

there ya have it, god created man, not monkies that turned into man. END OF STORY. its in the fucking bible kiros, the bible TELLS you that god created man, it doesnt show you. to say something cocky and stupid like "who said anything about religion?" is preposterous, because the BIBLE states it as fact. its religious beacuse its a theory propelled by a gospel of religious teachings. thats it kiros, thats the entire proof of creationism, right there in the bible. the bible says it to be true, so it must be, right? :lol:

[Kiros]

OK, so then tell me, where in the bible does it state that Creationism is that of which you have shown up? Intelligent Design simply states that some being created species. Yes, I do believe God created Earth, along with man, but I didn't say that because I know that you don't believe in all that religious stuff. I thought I was doing you a favor, but evidently, you couldn't see it and took me for being stupid. In any case, you have shown me just how ignorant a person could be. (If you don't know what ignorant means, may I suggest you look it up?) This is becoming rather enjoyable to see you and the other evolution enthusiasts saying that there's evidence :lol: But, I've already said it three times now, so if you wanna see the truth, then read my previous post :)

As of now, I'm letting this thread go. Have fun with your theory :)

Chow

[<-Dying_to_Live->]

thats typical of you kiros, backing out when the heat gets turned up. panzy. the first sentance of your post doesnt make sense. in fact your entire post doesnt make sense either. intelligent design isnt even in the bible, and has less supporting evidence than all of the theories. intelligent design is just some gut feeling "i have no idea how the universe was made, so uh.... someone fuckin had to do it!!" thats not even logic, thats just stupid. at least creationism is in the bible and some people actully believe it. only like 30 percent of people believe intelligent design, which is based on nothing but word of mouth

this is the shortest proof i could find:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC

[This document is in the public domain and may be used, in whole or in part, without charge and without permission, by anyone, provided the source is acknowledged. Last revised in March 2005]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

[RowanVer.3.0]

School isn't about religion, it's about academics. If you want to learn about religion go to a church, that's what they're there for, right...? Besides, bear in mind not everyone has faith. Some are agnostic/athiest, is it fair to teach blasphemy to these people just because they see things more logicly? No, no it isn't.

[anic91]

Evolution should be taught in schools simply because it is a feasable scientific topic to learn about. However, religion should not be taught in public schools because by the constitution religion should be seperated from state, even state established (public) schools. Personally, i feel that intelligent design was involved inthe making of the universe becuase the universe is too complex and detailed to indicate that some random path of evolution could create everything in the universe. And what about before the "big bang"? Who or what was there before that and what was before even that era? There simply is no possible definitive time that the universe came to be because we can simply not grasp the exapanse of time that extends into the past. The question of when the beginning of anything was is simply too baffling to be understood by any human, so we shouldn't be teaching it in schools and instilling religion as more probable than science becuase it is the student's job to decide their beleif through deep thought, not the school's.

[kolte]

Evolution should be taught in schools simply because it is a feasable scientific topic to learn about. However, religion should not be taught in public schools because by the constitution religion should be seperated from state, even state established (public) schools. Personally, i feel that intelligent design was involved inthe making of the universe becuase the universe is too complex and detailed to indicate that some random path of evolution could create everything in the universe. And what about before the "big bang"? Who or what was there before that and what was before even that era? There simply is no possible definitive time that the universe came to be because we can simply not grasp the exapanse of time that extends into the past. The question of when the beginning of anything was is simply too baffling to be understood by any human, so we shouldn't be teaching it in schools and instilling religion as more probable than science becuase it is the student's job to decide their beleif through deep thought, not the school's.

indeed, I like that, tis good. but I still think that if your gonna teach one, you need to atleast touch down on the other. at least put the thought into the head's of the children, you said it yourself, its there choice, so touch down on both, but don't over teach either one