8.05.2005

Bush Hints at Support of Intelligent Design Movement

At a recent interview, Bush gave his views on several different issues to different Texas reporters. When asked by the newsmen about the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, Bush was tactically brief. Declining to elaborate on his own views, he nevertheless spoke about the issue in schools. "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so that people can understand what the debate is about." Sounds sensible. The President went into more detail: "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," he said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." This is an elaboration on what Bush said late 2004 when asked the same question. “. . . . it is not the federal government’s role to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom” but “of course, scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum." To read the whole article by CNN, click here.

Personally, I would have preferred that Bush be more vocal, but I understand his reservations. With the stronghold that evolution has gained in American education, we must be careful not to be branded as "anti-science".

Proponents of the ID movement and Biblical creationists aren't "antiscience", they just believe that something greater than science exists and is responsible for natural phenomena . . . like the existence of the universe, for example. To see a comparison of Intelligent Design, Secular Humanism, and Biblical Creationism, click on this picture:

Click Here

What do you think?

In Him,

D3

22 comments:

Brian said...

Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science course. To teach it in a science course is bad for many reasons. First off it is not a scientific theory, scientific theories make specific predictions. Any theory which does not make a specific prediction is not science, its just that simple. Teach it in a religion course if you want, but not in a science course. The other reason it is bad is that the scientific community universally recognizes that ID is not science, so to teach it in a science course would be telling the students that the opinions of the experts in the field do not matter. Its just academically dishonest.

David Ketter said...

First off it is not a scientific theory, scientific theories make specific predictions.

Which immediately disqualifies macro-evolution as well...

Any theory which does not make a specific prediction is not science, its just that simple. Teach it in a religion course if you want, but not in a science course.

Exactly, if you are going to use that logic, it applies, as I said, to macroevolution.

The other reason it is bad is that the scientific community universally recognizes that ID is not science

My friend, I'm sorry that you are mistaken in this area. Even outside of Answers In Genesis (which boasts many accomplished scientists), there are many in the scientific community - be they teachers, researchers, or professors, that believe ID is scientifically plausible. In fact, just recently, 400 of them released a signed statement about ID.

Its just academically dishonest.

What is academically dishonest is to teach kids that macroevolution is fact when it can't even get through the scientific process correctly. Any idea concerning origins cannot be shown, scientifically, to be fact because the process cannot be repeated.

David S. MacMillan III said...

First off it is not a scientific theory, scientific theories make specific predictions. Any theory which does not make a specific prediction is not science, its just that simple.

I'm afraid you're confused. By that definition, Evolution is not science because it does not make predictions. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are origin/forensic science; they deal with what happened in the past.

Science that makes predictions about the way things will happen is empirical science. Science that makes conclusions about what did happen is origin science. Evolution says that the universe came about through random chance. ID says that the universe came about through supernatural intervention. They are both scientific theories about the past.

The other reason it is bad is that the scientific community universally recognizes that ID is not science. . . .

UNIVERSALLY? Click here to see TONS of scientists who recognize ID as legitimate.

Brian said...

Well in fact evolution does make "predictions", prediction do not nessarily have to be things that happen in the future, just scientific data that is explained by the theory.

For example evolution predicts fossil patterns, that have been in fact observed.

In terms of judging Intelligent Design merit's as a science, why distrust the judgement of the scientific community??????

Brian said...

In terms of science and ID, ill just let you people know that I am a scientist, and being a member of the scientfic community, I can tell you that ID is UNIVERSALLY not considered to be science.

David Ketter said...

Brian,

I'm afraid you must be in an isolated part of the scientific community (no joke) because there at least 600 or so scientists that support ID AS A SCIENCE.

What about Dr. David Menton? He's a biologist that is recognized world-wide for his work...yet he supports ID as a science.

David S. MacMillan III said...

What's your definition of the scientific community? Everyone who agrees with you?

My dad has a Masters in a scientific discipline. Dr. Jason Lisle of AiG is a close friend of mine; he has a PhD in astrophysics. Both of them support ID as science, though they prefer Biblical Creationism.

Charles Darwin predicted literally thousands of intermediate fossils. ID predicts practically none (see, there's a prediction by ID). We find . . . hardly any; the ones we find are highly disputed. Take human evolution. "Modern" human fossils were found beneath Lucy. Almost all supposed missing links are still missing.

Brian said...

Yes the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard are isolated parts of the scientfic community.

Since ID assumes life was created by a supernatural being, ID in fact makes no predictions, because a supernatural being could create life in any way imaginable.

A simpler what to explain why ID is not a scientific theory, is the following...all scientific theory are required to have a property called "falsifiablity", that is if there is no way an observation can disprove a theory, than it doesnt really make any unique predictions. And there is no way data could ever possibly disprove that some higher being created humanity.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Yes the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard are isolated parts of the scientfic community.

It may surprise you to know that I have several professor and student friends at Ivy League schools, all of whom believe ID is legitimate. To view the qualifications of the AiG PhDs, click here. I won't go into detail concerning the myriad of secular colleges that have given these men and women degrees, but 30 seconds at the link should convince you.

Since ID assumes life was created by a supernatural being, ID in fact makes no predictions, because a supernatural being could create life in any way imaginable.

ID makes predictions based on the assumption that life was supernaturally created, just like evolution makes predictions based on the assumption that life evolved naturally.

For instance, Biblical Creationists predict that we will find evidence of the Global Flood like this: billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, appearing to be laid down by water, covering the earth. What do we find? The fossil layer.

A simpler way to explain why ID is not a scientific theory, is the following...all scientific theory are required to have a property called "falsifiablity", that is if there is no way an observation can disprove a theory, than it doesnt really make any unique predictions. And there is no way data could ever possibly disprove that some higher being created humanity.

ID is just as "falsifiable" as evolution. ID says that since there is no way life could have come about by chance, then some supernatural creator must exist. If you can demonstrate that it is possible for complex life to arise naturally, this falsifies ID.

Remember that all scientific arguments concerning the past are founded on logic. If-then statements. If X is possible/impossible, Y did/did not happen.

It is illogical to attack the "then" statement (for example, it's impossible to prove evolution didn't happen), so we have to attack the "if" statement (is it possible for evolution to occur at all?).

The idea that God "used" evolution and natural processes to create life is not science because it is infalsifiable. The idea that evolution is impossible, thus necessitating the existence of God for the purpose of creation is falsifiable if you demonstrate that evolution is possible.

Brian said...

I understand now, why you are confused, and why you erroneously believe ID to be science.

there are two different ideas, you have mixed together as being one.

Theres the first idea, which is to examine evolution, and tryin to find critiques in evolution using scientific logic. Of course finding problems with evolution doesnt nessecarily mean evolution is wrong, could just mean as with all other science, as we look into it in more details we usually find we need to make modifications of our understanding. In any case examining any scientific theory in detail is science, and its what most research amounts too.


But you have to understand finding critques in one theory is not the same thing as developing a new theory. It appears to me what your trying to do is label these critiques as being a theory in of itself. And critiques just aren't a theory.

Then theres this thing called ID which pretends to be a scientfic theory, of course its not, its just an unprovable assertion about the origin of the universe.

Essentially what your trying to say with ID is the following, your suggesting that you dont believe science can explain life,
(in direct contradiction to the beliefs of scientific community), and then your saying since science cant explain it, god must be the answer. First off for that argumemt to even begin to have legitimacy, you would have to prove as a mathematical theorem(in the manner of hamilton and godel), that science could never explain life. This is not something ID people have even attempted to do. All ID people have done are back of the envelope calculations that show that its amazaing that life exists, well that was known way before the ID people sprung up. But even if the ID people had some sort of mathematical theorem in the form hamilton and godel, ID still wouldnt be science.

And the basic reason is the following, SCIENCE is meant to explain physical data, using GOD u can explain ANYTHING, it just serves no useful purpose to use GOD as an explanation, u will never be able to build TVs, computers, and airplanes, by using GOD.
The point of science is that is the study of reproducable phenomonon, and god by defintion isnt a reproducable phenomonon, he wouldn't be a very powerful god if he were reproducable.

David S. MacMillan III said...

There's the first idea, which is to examine evolution, and tryin to find critiques in evolution using scientific logic. Of course finding problems with evolution doesnt nessecarily mean evolution is wrong, could just mean as with all other science, as we look into it in more details we usually find we need to make modifications of our understanding. In any case examining any scientific theory in detail is science, and its what most research amounts too.

But you have to understand finding critques in one theory is not the same thing as developing a new theory. It appears to me what your trying to do is label these critiques as being a theory in of itself. And critiques just aren't a theory.


If you critique a theory and find it to be fundamentally unsound, wouldn't you devise a new theory? Isn't that what science is all about?

Then there's this thing called ID which pretends to be a scientfic theory, of course its not, it's just an unprovable assertion about the origin of the universe.

I could just as easily say that evolution is an unprovable assertion about the origin of the universe.

Essentially what your trying to say with ID is the following, your suggesting that you dont believe science can explain life,
(in direct contradiction to the beliefs of scientific community),


You keep on talking about this amazing "scientific community". Who is this? Who determines who gets to be part of it?

Remember, majority doesn't determine scientific fact. For centuries science taught abiogenesis; life from non-life; maggots from rotting meat and mice from sweaty garments. Louis Pasteur critiqued this theory and found it to be false.

and then your saying since science can't explain it, god must be the answer.

Basically. If science can't explain our existence, then there must be something that can go beyond natural laws. Something more than nature. Something above nature. Super-natural.

Empirical science studies natural processes (chemistry, physics, biology, etc.). Forensics (origin science, CSI, etc.) studies the past and whether or not natural processes made the things we see today, and if so, which processes. Example: autopsy. The doctor tries to find out whether the patient died of natural causes or if they died due to murder.

First off for that argumemt to even begin to have legitimacy, you would have to prove as a mathematical theorem (in the manner of hamilton and godel), that science could never explain life. This is not something ID people have even attempted to do.

Oh yeah? Right now I am reading a book called God Has To Be that details why evolution is mathematically and scientifically impossible. Read my article on evolution at this link (scroll down to my article) for an explanation of why evolution is 100% scientifically bankrupt.

All ID people have done are back of the envelope calculations that show that its amazaing that life exists, well that was known way before the ID people sprung up.

No, they have shown that it is scientifically impossible for life to arise naturally and scientifically impossible for macroevolution to occur.

But even if the ID people had some sort of mathematical theorem in the form hamilton and godel, ID still wouldnt be science.

And the basic reason is the following, SCIENCE is meant to explain physical data


. . . along what lines? If we cannot find any natural process that explains physical data, then it is only logical that there must be something supernatural.

using GOD u can explain ANYTHING, it just serves no useful purpose to use GOD as an explanation, u will never be able to build TVs, computers, and airplanes, by using GOD.

Point in question: since when was the usability of truth part of the debate? If you want to build TVs, computers, and airplanes, then why not use some plastic explosive in a Boeing factory? Then, if we don't get what we want, blow it up again! Work until you get something, then blow that up repeatedly. Evolution, which you claim is science, tells us that complex systems arise by chance, so why not apply this to technology?

The point of science is that is the study of reproducable phenomonon, and god by defintion isnt a reproducable phenomonon, he wouldn't be a very powerful god if he were reproducable.

The point of empirical science is the study of natural processes. The point of forensic science is the close examination of physical data with the intent to discover what caused it.

Here's the crux of the matter.

We aren't advocating the study of the supernatural (that's for religion class), we're advocating the study of nature without ruling out the supernatural ad hoc.

Do you think it's academically honest to rule out any logical possibilities when studying physical data?

Brian said...

This will most likely be my last comment, because honestly its just tiresome.

To me it seems pretty evident that you want to use science to prove the existance of god, a task that quite frankly science isnt powerful enough to do.

As a said before, for there to be any actual SCIENCE in ID would require some THEOREM proving that science can not explain life.

If you are able to write down this theorem, well than i would reconsider my views on ID. But i have looked for this theorem in the past, I have never read anywhere, anyone even claiming to have such a theorem. But if YOU have the theorem well then theres actual discussion of scientific merit that can be had.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David S. MacMillan III said...

This will most likely be my last comment, because honestly its just tiresome.

That's too bad. It's great to be discussing stuff with a top nuclear scientist from MIT. I hope you change your mind and continue commenting; it's really a great experience.

Are you a student in the Nuclear Lab, or are you a researcher or a prof?

To me it seems pretty evident that you want to use science to prove the existance of god, a task that quite frankly science isnt powerful enough to do.

No, no, no. You've misunderestimated me. I am trying to use logic to prove the existence of God, just like you use are trying to use logic to prove that it all happened naturally.

I'm not trying to prove the existence of God through science; I'm trying to prove, through science, that there is no natural process to account for the universe. IS THIS LEGITIMATE IN YOUR EYES?

As I said before, for there to be any actual SCIENCE in ID would require some THEOREM proving that science can not explain life.

Certainly. I agree.

If you are able to write down this theorem, well than i would reconsider my views on ID. But i have looked for this theorem in the past, I have never read anywhere, anyone even claiming to have such a theorem. But if YOU have the theorem well then theres actual discussion of scientific merit that can be had.

I see! So this is what you're looking for. Great! I love it when we can define our terms and debate logically rather than using this rough rhetoric.

Unfortunately, I'm not a PhD, so I'm not exactly sure exactly what you mean by theorem. This is the best I can do (please read every word carefully as it is very precise and all-inclusive):

Calculations show that the odds for life to arise by random chance molecular interactions are more than 1 in 10 to the 60th power. This is beyond the level of mathematical probability; secular statistical experts tell us that anything beyond 1 in 10 to the 50th is 100% impossible. Therefore, it is physically impossible for life to arise purely through random chance molecular interactions. Therefore, for life to exist there must be supernatural intervention.

Then here is my logical syllogism based on the theorem above.

-->Life cannot exist without supernatural intervention.

-->Life exists.

-->.: There has been supernatural intervention at some time in history.

Brian said...

I am grad student, that does work that is vaguely related to nuclear physics.

So its interesting, I guess you think I am trying to prove that creation of life all happenned naturally. I dont believe science or logic can prove it all happenned naturally. Rather that from a scienctific point of view, you have to assume it happenned naturally. I like to call this assumption the philosophy of science. The assumptions of science are unprovable.


Now onto my criticism of such calculations that try to show life is statistically impossible. These calculations, I would claim lack imagination because they assume a specific pathway through which life developed. But to do such calculation in a meaningful way requires that you know all the possible pathways that could lead to life, and knowing all these pathways is no small task.

And its this lack of imagination, that makes me say, that proponents of ID need theorems, that take into all the possiblities, that take into account are fundemental lack of imagination.

What I mean by a theorem is something of the following form. Assume you have some set of physical axioms(Laws) that govern the universe, and then show that these axioms can never lead to life existing..or at least lead to a vanishingly small probabity that life will ever exist.

There was a movement in the beginning of this century by mathematicians to come up with a system of axioms that all math can be derived from. This movement lead
to a series of theorems, basically detailing what mathematical systems can be broken down to a finite set of axioms, and which can not. For example, arithmetic it turns out can not be fully specified with finite axioms and something called "first order logic", anyhow this is the sort of theorem that would be required for science to consider ID to be anything more than a religious/politic movement.

One problem with statistical arguments trying to say that science can never lead to life, is you need to know the size of the sample space. There are some theories of physics for example that hold there are infinite number of universes, so as long as the probabilty is non-zero there will be some universes that have life. and of course we can only observe the universes that have life, cause it requires being alive to observe such a universe.

David S. MacMillan III said...

I am grad student, that does work that is vaguely related to nuclear physics.

Great! I am hoping to attend Harvard when I graduate highschool. Maybe we can get together sometime if you're still in MA.

So its interesting, I guess you think I am trying to prove that creation of life all happenned naturally.

Not necessarily. Because you have been raised in a school system that teaches life happened naturally, you assume it without thinking.

I don't believe science or logic can prove it all happenned naturally. Rather that from a scientific point of view, you have to assume it happenned naturally.

I have toWHAT?!?!?!? I don't think so.

There are three branches of science: natural science (study of natural processes in the present), applied science (application of natural processes to the future; industry), and forensic science (study of present evidence to discover the past). In natural and applied science it does make sense to rule out the supernatural because you can't count on it to happen again. You're at MIT; you know that.

But in forensic science we aren't studying anything repeatable or testable; we're trying to find out the causes of things that happened in the past. It would be irrational to rule out any possiblities when looking at the past.

Sometimes, parts of natural science can be used in forensics (finding a natural process that works today and matching it with the evidence of the past). But we never try to apply forensic science to industry, because the past is not repeatable.

It's academically dishonest to rule out any logical possibilities in any scientific discipline, especially forensics where we know so little and guess so much.

When dealing with I like to call this assumption the philosophy of science. The assumptions of science are unprovable.

Again, this applies to natural and applied science but not to forensics because forensic science is non-repeatable and non-testable (like the supernatural).

Now onto my criticism of such calculations that try to show life is statistically impossible.

Yee-hah! Now we're getting down to the good stuff.

These calculations, I would claim lack imagination because they assume a specific pathway through which life developed. But to do such calculation in a meaningful way requires that you know all the possible pathways that could lead to life, and knowing all these pathways is no small task.

I agree. We are limited by only being able to study one form of life. However, here's the clincher:

I admit that the possiblilities for different life forms are incredible. But from what we know about life here on Earth, we can say with a great deal of confidence that if "Earthian" life began to develop, the odds that it could continue are terrible.

There are many possibilities for life, but we have to try and find out how this kind of life completed itself after it started (there are probably many kinds of/replacements for DNA, but once it develops we have to have a perfect deciphering and copying mechanism or it won't continue).

And its this lack of imagination, that makes me say, that proponents of ID need theorems, that take into all the possiblities, that take into account are fundemental lack of imagination.

We can imagine many kinds of life, but we know that only the life we see on Earth evolved right here. So we have to see whether this life could've come about by chance; anything "imaginative" is simply speculation.

What I mean by a theorem is something of the following form. Assume you have some set of physical axioms(Laws) that govern the universe, and then show that these axioms can never lead to life existing . . . or at least lead to a vanishingly small probabity that life will ever exist.

OK.

There was a movement in the beginning of this century by mathematicians to come up with a system of axioms that all math can be derived from. This movement lead to a series of theorems, basically detailing what mathematical systems can be broken down to a finite set of axioms, and which can not. For example, arithmetic it turns out can not be fully specified with finite axioms and something called "first order logic", anyhow this is the sort of theorem that would be required for science to consider ID to be anything more than a religious/politic movement.

The axioms that we are using are the laws of statistical analysis.

One problem with statistical arguments trying to say that science can never lead to life, is you need to know the size of the sample space. There are some theories of physics for example that hold there are infinite number of universes, so as long as the probabilty is non-zero there will be some universes that have life.

Wait a minute. This "theory" of physics is entirely speculative. You have no evidence; it is entirely guesswork.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that there are an infinite number of universes. This would not necessarily mean that there are an infinite number of differences. Each universe would have an equal chance at developing life; although there are an infinite number of universes not all of them are different. If it is impossible for life to develop without intelligence, infinite chances won't help.

and of course we can only observe the universes that have life, cause it requires being alive to observe such a universe.

I've heard this argument. But since this is the only universe we can observe, we have to question whether life could develop here.

I made this comment over several days; sorry if it's kinda of hard to understand.

Brian said...

I may respond to your comment later.

But for now I will just point out the following. Ive been trying to do some websearching to figure out where the idea of "intelligent design" came from.

From the best I can gather it is supposedly based on "No Free Lunch Theorems", which are
essentially theorems about searching algorithms. But the mathematicians who developed these No Free Lunch theorems, do not agree that the theorems can be used to support intelligent design.

look at the following link

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/06/icons_of_id_no_free_lunch_theorems.html

David S. MacMillan III said...

Hey Brian,

Your link was broken.

Also, I would like to clarify what I said earlier:

If we have infinite universes,

and if the chance for life to develop is 1 in 10 to the 100th (10!100),

then in each universe, it is as if a revolver with 10!100 loaded chambers and one blank chamber is placed at the head of evolutionary processes. The gun is fired. Then, for each new universe, the gun is reloaded before the trial is re-done.

Remember that all universes are closed systems; even if there were infinite other universes it would have no bearing on the probability.

and of course we can only observe the universes that have life, cause it requires being alive to observe such a universe.

Interestingly enough, this would seem to posit that humans have souls and are placed in whatever universe has life . . . which isn't really in accordance with secular humanism. If this isn't the case, then your statement that "we can only observe universes with life" is somewhat misleading; it would make it seem that our "observe-ers" are separate from the universes.

Of course this assumes the absolutely unprovable, unfalsifiable, unobservable, untestable, unscientific speculation that infinite universes exist.

Brian said...

I found a better link...
for you to look at.

Click

So in terms of your belief in ID??

Do you believe that ID proves no axiomatic theory of science can explain life?

or is that you find evolution hard to believe so you want to compare it to ID as if they are two "theories" on equal footing?

Toad734 said...

Yes let's expose our school children to different ideas.

I propose the sexual laden "science" of procreation is just a theory. I think we should teach children that storks deliver our babies to us. Scientists will be sure to avoid any type of conferences or discussions on this subject because they know their theory is flawed and ours is correct. A woman delivering a baby is like shooting a watermelon out of your nose... there's just too many holes in their "theory".

Why does science hate the stork so much?

Let's also consider other theories of creation such as the Annunaki who came from the planet Nibiru to mine for gold to repair their ozone layer fused their DNA with apes and created humans. That's another theory with just as much evidence as ID so it must be taught in schools. And then after that we can teach them the ancient Greek and Aztec theory of creation.

David S. MacMillan III said...

Hey Brian,

I read the article you had. It is an excellent record of the beginnings of the ID movement, albeit its strong evolutionist leanings. It helped me to learn a lot about this debate.

I would refute all the evolutionist arguments in it, but since I don't have that much time I'll only address one of the more puzzling ones:

We add new parts like global-positioning systems to cars not because they’re necessary but because they’re nice. But no one would be surprised if, in fifty years, computers that rely on G.P.S. actually drove our cars. At that point, G.P.S. would no longer be an attractive option; it would be an essential piece of automotive technology. It’s important to see that this process is thoroughly Darwinian: each change might well be small and each represents an improvement.

To start with, this argument is extremely ironic. No one would posit that a GPS or advanced computer system would arise by chance, but y'all assure us that the incredibly complex system of life arose by chance.

But this argument is also fundamentally flawed because it fails to completely represent the facts. To continue with their analogy, the GPS system can operate by itself, without the aid of the completed computer system.

This is not the case in life; for example the live-birth system in mammals would not work in the least unless all the parts were in operation, and each individual part would inevitably be a liability unless it was part of the entire scheme, working all the way.

The system of live birth is simply incredible. The placenta by itself is amazing; it's like switching from battery power (yolk in an egg) to AC outlet (placenta/umbilical cord). Just like dynamos didn't develop from batteries, the placenta system cannot evolve from the yolk system. It's entirely incompatible. Each function in life is comprised of so many other functions comprised of so many other functions that you must have just about everything working at once or the system never works at all. Watch Dr. David Menton's video Fearfully and Wonderfully Made for more information on the miracle of birth.

More later.

David S. MacMillan III said...

So in terms of your belief in ID??

Personally, I have examined every logical model for natural history and find the Biblical account to be most compatible with the evidence I see around me. In fact, I have never seen any evidence that would contradict this account; all the contradictions I have ever seen are just speculations.

Do you believe that ID proves no axiomatic theory of science can explain life?

or is that you find evolution hard to believe so you want to compare it to ID as if they are two "theories" on equal footing?


No matter how much research is done, someone can always come up with a just-so story to explain the origin of life without supernatural intervention. Since I'm not that well versed in the language of axioms, I'm sure you can come up with a just-so story in the form of an axiomatic theory.

No one can prove that evolution didn't happen just like you can't prove that God didn't create the universe. But I can show evidence that evolution doesn't happen today and isn't a viable natural process, and you can show evidence that it is.

Regardless of the calculations that are made, this is the essence of ID:

There are no natural processes in operation today that can create/evolve life. Therefore, the only logical possibilities are:

A (Naturalism). Some natural process that we haven't seen yet substantiates evolution.

B (Intelligent Design). Some super-natural process created/evolved life.

Unless you can point out the natural process that would validate A, then each hypothesis is equally credible.

These two choices are what I believe should be taught in schools. Students can compare the models that work with each hypothesis. Models should be chosen based on their agreement/disagreement with outside evidence, but the two hypothesis' shown above should be given equal consideration.

What do you think of that?

Also, toad, your analogy is really messed up. Usually I don't use this quote from Ken Ham, but it is appropriate right now. "Was anyone there?"

We observe reproduction; it is a natural process. We did not observe evolution; it is not a natural process. That's the difference, brainiac.

Let's also consider other theories of creation such as the Annunaki . . . and created humans. That's another theory with just as much evidence as ID so it must be taught in schools.

WRONG! That is a model of ID, just like saying that a meteor blasted into earth and blew everything into being just as we see it today is a model of Naturalism.

And then after that we can teach them the ancient Greek and Aztec theory of creation.

I don't advocate teaching creation in schools, I advocate comparison of the two choices I listed above (Naturalism vs. ID). If the school wants to, it can provide popular examples of each, but it makes sense to give evolution as an example of Naturalism just like it makes sense to give Bibilical Creationism as an example of ID, rather than the meteor theory and the Greek/Aztec theory.