so what makes ID a theory that is worthy of teaching?
why not teach any other alternative theory?
what about the FSM theory, which (in my mind at least) is more valid than ID?
can we have theories that start out with conclusions, and then find evidence?
should we allow the scientific method to deteriorate?

I think that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is supposed to be a parody of ID.
In it “God” is your noodly master that your supposed to dress up as a pirate for.
The reason it isn't and wont be taught is do to the fact that it is a big “F” you to all organized religions due to their wanting to introduce ID into class rooms. People do believe that God created the universe, sure I can't PROVE that no one believes that it was done by a FSM, but I highly suspect that all pastafarrians know what they're doing is just a parody.
IMO religion should not be taught in the class room. Delicious or other wise. Ramen

I agree with the poster immensly.
Now do you remember this debate happening when clinton was in power?
The last i remember reading about a debate between ID and Evolution was back when Darwin came up with his theory. Yet over 100 years later christian fanatics are trying to bring the debate back.
Bush&Co. is not only having a war on terroism but they have having a war on science aswell. They are trying to convince the public that science is just a different religion and hence that both theories should be presented in schools, but science is not a religion. Its funny how surposedly the most "advance country" in the world is debating a topic that was debunked over 100 years ago.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so what makes ID a theory that is worthy of teaching?
why not teach any other alternative theory?
what about the FSM theory, which (in my mind at least) is more valid than ID?

Here is a perfect example of why the O&C forum at ATS is pretty much the bottom of barrel in terms of online origins forums.

This statement pretty much indicates the OP's knowledge of ID was obtained from People magazine, and they are really only interested in starting a "Hey guys let's belittle things we don't really understand thread," not actually discussing anything.

Okay Madness... this is your 3rd ID baiting thread... Finally I'll take the bait. Please... in your vast knowledge of origins science, and biology in general, please enlighten me as to how foolish I must be to support people like Behe and Dembski in their quest to pursue science where they feel it takes them.

This should be... something... I can't imagine what, but certainly... something

[edit on 5-6-2006 by mattison0922]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so what makes ID a theory that is worthy of teaching?
why not teach any other alternative theory?
what about the FSM theory, which (in my mind at least) is more valid than ID?
can we have theories that start out with conclusions, and then find evidence?
should we allow the scientific method to deteriorate?

isn't that what makes it a theory in the first place? I we knew all the answers and then came up with a conclusion would that would be fact. Instead we are always guessing at something that really doesn't effect us... I know that you're thinking right now, "how couldn't it effect us?",... "isn't that the answer?",... etc

Well let's see here,... If we already have a conclusion then why are people still searching for an answer? That can't be now can it? Unless,... of course,... we never had a "conclusion" in the first place. Most of them are cool fantasies,...
And don't get me wrong here,... I'm a strong believer in evolution and mutaion,... but I can't prove much more than it's actual exsistance rather than come up with physical evidence. Evolution happens over a long peroid of time. however when cronicled, you can witness it happening much like flipbook or still shot movie of a flower growing.
Yeah anyways that's about all I have to say on that.