You can believe in Intelligent Design whatever your orientation. It is the stuff that private schools are teaching nowadays. It says that there is a God and that he created the universe using scientific principles (the Big Bang, evolution).
Plus. it can be taught to any religious audience. Whether they believe in YHWH, the Word, Allah, Brahman, the Yin-Yang, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which was, quite incidentally, formed as a protest to the ID idea), the students can be taught Intelligent Design without problem.
A common mistake is that some people- yes, ATS, you are guilty of this, too- think that creationism and Intelligent Design are synonymous. In fact, the opposite is true. While teaching Catholic creationism in public schools would certainly violate the First Amendment, Intelligent Design fits very nicely through a little-seen loophole. The First Amendment only states that the government can not make a law about what religion the people practice. However, belief in a God is repeatedly referenced throughout the Declaration of Independance- and, heck, "In God We Trust" is on the dollar bill.

Thanks for your time,
Seraph

You don't teach Intelligent Design because it is bogus science. No matter how many big sciencey words you attach to it, no matter how many convoluted half truths you attach - it is still not science and has NO - ABSOLUTELY NONE documented proofs.

To believe otherwise is willful ignorance.

Even if religion is completely removed from the theory of intelligent design it still has no experimental evidence to back up the theory with. Until we can run an experiment that provides repeatable testable experimental evidence for the theory of intelligent design then there is no point in teaching it as an alternative theory in the Science classroom.

Find that evidence good sir/ma'am and prove to the world that intelligent design is probable! It is up to you to run an experiment and prove it. We could use more alternative theories backed with experimental evidence. The Big bang model fits the pieces together pretty well but IMO is horrible because it stops at the big bang.

I find the Big Bang model horrid but that is not to say that it does not fit the clues together in the best possible arrangement so far. All intelligent design is doing is saying

"Everything that you scientists just said is true, but tack on "An Intelligence did it" onto the end".

With our current model we do not NEED to tack an intelligence onto the end. It works WITHOUT an intelligence. Create an experiment that provides evidence to show that an intelligence did it and then the theory of intelligent design will be a good theory.

Originally posted by seraphnb
You can believe in Intelligent Design whatever your orientation.

Yes, one could choose to believe in it. But that's all it would be... a belief.

It is the stuff that private schools are teaching nowadays.

All private schools? Or just theistic private schools in the United States?

It says that there is a God and that he created the universe using scientific principles (the Big Bang, evolution).

And there's no scientific proof of a creator, regardless of the identity of that creator, so it has no place in a science class.

Plus. it can be taught to any religious audience.

Key word here is "religious".

Whether they believe in YHWH, the Word, Allah, Brahman, the Yin-Yang, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which was, quite incidentally, formed as a protest to the ID idea), the students can be taught Intelligent Design without problem.

Regardless of the identity of the creator, it's still ultimately religion and has no place in a science classroom.

A common mistake is that some people- yes, ATS, you are guilty of this, too- think that creationism and Intelligent Design are synonymous. In fact, the opposite is true.

The Intelligent Design movement as put forth by the Discovery Institute, which is the vanguard organization for the ID movement, is nothing more than a rebranding of creationism. Look into how the word "creationism" and "creationist" were replaced with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in the book Of Pandas and People without changing any of the other text for an example. If you don't think ID and creationism are synonymous, you're deluding yourself.

While teaching Catholic creationism in public schools would certainly violate the First Amendment, Intelligent Design fits very nicely through a little-seen loophole.

Better tell that to Judge Jones from the Kitzmiller case. In his decision for the case he wrote:

It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID’s religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.

And a few lines later, in the same decision:

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.

It doesn't get much simpler or more direct than that.

The First Amendment only states that the government can not make a law about what religion the people practice. However, belief in a God is repeatedly referenced throughout the Declaration of Independance- and, heck, "In God We Trust" is on the dollar bill.

The Supreme Court has found, repeatedly, that teaching creationism in a public school as part of a science curriculum violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. In the Kitzmiller case, the presiding judge found that Intelligent Design and creationism are synonymous. Sorry, but there is no loophole by which you can introduce an inherently nonscientific, religion-based subject into a public school science class. If schools wanted to discuss creationism or creationism v2.0 in a comparative religions class, I would applaud it.

Intellegent design is just a hybrid of science(which is true) and religion(which has no factual backing) in my opinion i think its just the religions of the world adapting to the times, if they didn't they would lose followers.

Intelligent Design is NOT and will NEVER be accepted because its rubbish. All it does is use scientific words and tries to blag its way from there.

Its also interesting, that in a court case, the orginial authors of Intelligent Design would not swear on the Bible that its different from creationism....

Originally posted by Horza2002
Intelligent Design is NOT and will NEVER be accepted because its rubbish. All it does is use scientific words and tries to blag its way from there.

Its also interesting, that in a court case, the orginial authors of Intelligent Design would not swear on the Bible that its different from creationism....

Of course they won't!!

A few dozen years ago, a lot of people believed in talking snakes, or that Noah's flood really happened, or that humans just popped up in their current form without evolution. Science has demonstrated that those claims are complete and utter nonsense...

If they still insisted those things are true, when in reality they are demonstrably not, people would make fun of them. Hell, there's still a tiny majority making such claims, and imo they're a bit of a joke. So as a defence, they are now pretending it's all a metaphor and trying to claim quantum theory and other stuff fully backs up their twisted interpretation of the bible. At the same time, a lot of them refuse to fully admit the literal interpretation is complete and utter nonsense. Why? Because they've been brainwashed since childhood. And admitting they're simply wrong, that their belief is demonstrably wrong, would be admitting they believed in fairy tales (which they obviously do). No one likes to be wrong, so it's only natural they now try to find a way to make it still "fit" their scripture. That's true not only for the bible, but for most religions.

Imagine this: You are 45yrs old, and since childhood, went to church every single sunday for 1-2hrs. That means you spent approximately 146days (!!!) of your entire life. Time you could have spent playing with your kids, learning a language, doing community work, just enjoying life and watching the game. I obviously think the going to church option is nonsense, and yes, I would kick myself for having done that once I realized it was based on an illogical belief. HOWEVER, I think it's even worse to continue to delude yourself just to evade having to admit you were wrong. Hell, if you turn 80, you'll have spent another 146 days sitting on a bench listening to stuff that isn't backed up by objective evidence. I think this ignorance is a lot worse than admitting you were wrong. I don't even think admitting you were wrong is a bad thing, it's awesome imo and shows great character. I know a few guys on here have gone through that, and I take my hat of to them. It takes a great man to admit you were wrong, and accepting reality isn't always easy, so high 5 to them