Intelligent Design

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]RickJames wrote:
I think it’s interesting how emotional people on both sides take this debate. For one, it means little to whether or not there is a god, a Christian god, or a flying spaghetti monster. It makes more sense for those of faith to get emotionally involved in the argument, as they are in a sense defending what they see as a buddy. It makes less sense to me for those not of faith to get so emotionally worked up over it, even as some kind of defense mechanism. Seems to make you think that some worship the modern use of science as a religion.
[/quote]

People of faith don’t have to get worked up either in my opinion, since you can believe that God brought things about through whatever mechanism that has been used. When people get worked up about it they forget the most important thing about God, and that is He could do it any way He wanted to.

[quote]
This discussion is also moot because they don’t go into these topics in schools enough to nearly “prove” one side or another. The standard fare provided by science curriculums is pretty weak in supporting the theories presented. At the collegiate level, things are a bit different, but by then we assume people can think for themselves.

I think teaching kids the role of science and how to think critically is MUCH more important. In the past, the best scientific minds thought the earth was flat because they were off by a very small measurement (the curvature of the earth).

I think our children need to learn that science is an ever-evolving (ahhhh! evolution!!! haha) process, and that we should always push for more truth, and not sit on our laurels thinking that the best minds of today have everything figured out. Evolution is a theory and will most likely be modified in the future. In what direction, we don’t know yet.

A problem I have with ID is that it’s essentially a black box kind of answer (sort of like “dark matter” accounting for 90% of the universe’s mass. haha). Let’s say they can point to mathematical evidence that the likelihood of life evolving the way it did is just retarded. What does that really mean? We could just happen to be the luckiest bastards because we happened to evolve. Or a god could have done it. Or space aliens could be guiding our evolution (Tom Cruise might go with this one). ID SEEMS to purport that there is some kind of force outside of the natural observable forces…and science just can’t deal with the supernatural by its very nature. [/quote]

The rest of your post is exactly what I think about it.

102

The whole ID concept relies on the idea that we couldn’t have evolved from a random pool of amino acids because we’re too complex.

But science has been able to show us the exact mechanisms that we did evolve through, and can demonstrate those mechanisms to us today.

We are NOT so complex that we couldn’t have evolved without a designer, and we can show ID-ists exactly how it happened.

No wonder ID has a reputation for attracting gullible dummies: anybody who seroiusly looks into the issue can see easily how overwhelming the evidence for evolution is, and see that it is still happening right now.

Are we complex, and is evolution complex? Sure they are, but so is calculus, and so is the sun, and so is a sodium molecule… do all these things have intelligent designers?

If looking for the solution to a complex problem is too intimidating for all you lazy motherfuckers, then take your ID & enjoy it, but don’t teach it to my kids & tell them it’s a legitimate theory.

103

[quote]Killa Cam wrote:
The whole ID concept relies on the idea that we couldn’t have evolved from a random pool of amino acids because we’re too complex.
[/quote]
That is a mis-leading statement.

But can you explain why it happened?

Have you ever heard of Theistic evolution, or are you just attributing ID to creationist?

According to what ID, yes. Since God allowed for the coming about of all through some automated or non automated device.

[quote]
If looking for the solution to a complex problem is too intimidating for all you lazy motherfuckers, then take your ID & enjoy it, but don’t teach it to my kids & tell them it’s a legitimate theory.[/quote]

I think you prove my point about science being tainted by atheists as well.

104

[quote]haney wrote:
Killa Cam wrote:
The whole ID concept relies on the idea that we couldn’t have evolved from a random pool of amino acids because we’re too complex.

That is a mis-leading statement.[/quote]

I don’t think it’s misleading, but just saying that it is doesn’t mean anything… how & why do you think it’s misleading?

[quote]
But science has been able to show us the exact mechanisms that we did evolve through, and can demonstrate those mechanisms to us today.

We are NOT so complex that we couldn’t have evolved without a designer, and we can show ID-ists exactly how it happened.

But can you explain why it happened? [/quote]

Because according to the laws that everything in our universe is subject to, under the circumstances that existed billions of years ago on earth, amino acids & DNA spontaneously form.

The more interesting argument might be that the laws that govern our universe are some manifestation of God. That’s something much more fundamental & far reaching, and it’s something that playes less on our narcissism that God is going to go to the trouble of making us.

[quote]
No wonder ID has a reputation for attracting gullible dummies: anybody who seroiusly looks into the issue can see easily how overwhelming the evidence for evolution is, and see that it is still happening right now.

Have you ever heard of Theistic evolution, or are you just attributing ID to creationist?[/quote]

I have not heard of Theistic evolution, would you care to explain it to us, and demonstrate that there is some meaning to that point?

This isn’t my belief, but if you took my earlier point about the universal laws being some construct of god, this is probably a valid point

[quote]
If looking for the solution to a complex problem is too intimidating for all you lazy motherfuckers, then take your ID & enjoy it, but don’t teach it to my kids & tell them it’s a legitimate theory.

I think you prove my point about science being tainted by atheists as well. [/quote]

Once again, if you’ve got a point why don’t you just tell us all what it is? How is science tainted by athiests? & how do I prove that?

105

[quote]Killa Cam wrote:
haney wrote:
Killa Cam wrote:
The whole ID concept relies on the idea that we couldn’t have evolved from a random pool of amino acids because we’re too complex.

I don’t think it’s misleading, but just saying that it is doesn’t mean anything… how & why do you think it’s misleading?
[/quote]
ID does not make claims for or against evolution. It does make claims that it is not random. It is mis-leading because most people would take it as being against evolution, and it makes no claims to that.

you are explaining how. I asked why. What gives things the desire to live? To improve/evolve?

maybe this might explain it. You don’t have to have electricity to survive, yet you do have it since you are on the internet. Which means you have a reason why you will pay your light bill this month. My point is means to not always create a why. With out a why nothing ever happens.

My point is theistic evolution says that evolution is the way it happened, and That is how God chose for things to come about.

Here is where the theory get good. It takes the same pool of amino acids, and says that God was behind it. So the science still stays intact. The only difference is they thing God did it. You disagree with that, and that is great. Science can never prove that God didn’t do it though. So for you to say it wasn’t is nothing more than your opinion. which if my opinion, would be psuedo-science on this matter, then so would yours. since science can prove that part of the equation.

You will have to rephrase this, I am not following your reply.

Your entire post demonstatrates your attitude towards those who believe in God. You are crossing the lines of what science can and can’t prove by saying it can’t be God.

You version of science has an agenda that is not science.

My point has been made several posts before this. You would have caught it if you would have read them. Which would have kept you assuming that ID makes a claim on evolution.

Catch this: ID allows any method to be the vehicle God used to bring things about. That includes evolution.

Catch this: I don’t support ID being taught in school because it is a philosophy, and not a testable science. I am not in favor of your philosophy being taught either.

106

[quote]keefer wrote:
I mean, we’ve already proved evolution in animals and it humans from apelike to walking on two legs.[/quote]

Yes, we’ve proved micro evolution takes place.

Micro evolution is a completely different thing than macro evolution. I’m sick of people getting the two mixed up. They are not the same.

Micro evolution is a species of lizard growing a longer tail. It’s a dog getting larger or the fur changing color. IT’S STILL A LIZARD AND STILL A DOG!!

It is not a lizard turning into a dog, a tuna fish turning into a dolphin, or a baboon “evolving” into a human.

Macro evolution has never been proven and it never will. It’s a bunch of scientists that don’t believe in God making up stories and scenerios trying to explain something that never happened because they must find a way to explain everything without including God in any of it, no matter how pathetic and rediculous it sounds.

Well over 300 million years an amoeba started changing…And then 500 million years later we’ve got a fish…And then 490 million years later we have a mammall…Give me a break!!

107

Evolution and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive. This is something the ID don’t seem to understand.

News flash: The existence of God has never been proven either.

Here’s some irony: the fact that emus are birds that can’t fly kind of conflict with intelligent design, don’t you think?

108

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Macro evolution has never been proven and it never will. It’s a bunch of scientists that don’t believe in God making up stories and scenerios trying to explain something that never happened because they must find a way to explain everything without including God in any of it, no matter how pathetic and rediculous it sounds.

Evolution and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive. This is something the ID don’t seem to understand.

News flash: The existence of God has never been proven either.

Here’s some irony: the fact that emus are birds that can’t fly kind of conflict with intelligent design, don’t you think?[/quote]

I’m not an “intelligent design” specialist. I never said that I was. I don’t believe in macro evolution. Obviously micro evolution takes place. You obviously didn’t see the humor in my screen name. Yes emus are birds that can’t fly, but they are still birds. Maybe they MICRO evolved that way to adapt to their surrounding environment. Maybe they didn’t need to fly where they ended up.

But I’m sure the anti God people will try to take any kind of change in anything to try and somehow convince everyone that we people never used to be people.

All in all though, anybody who thinks that this planet and everything in it is not intelligent is out of their minds and not a logical person.

109

Haney

What I am saying is that blind faith is the only motivation for a person to believe in ID, and that ID is not a scientific theory.

Science is a process of knowing. It is characterized by observation, accumulation of data, and reptition of results.

Never, ever has there been any type of scientific observation or testing done to back up ID. There never will be either. That’s because there’s no way of knowing if there was an intelligent designer. This is why I think ID is such a cop-out.

Most IDers argue by challenging people to prove them wrong, then when we can’t it’s a victory. That’s their trick, because it’s set up so they can’t lose.

There is nothing scientific about ID, and it does not stand up to the criteria the scientific community demands a legitimate theory have.

I can tell you I believe the world was created by an invisible flying spaghetti monster. There’s nothing to indicate I’m wrong, but it seems unreasonable for me to think it’s right.

Also, IDers can easily change the rules of their game so that they win. Any indications that ID might be misled can be countered with “well that’s just part of the design”.

I don’t want to impose on anybody’s right to believe in whatever they want, but I find it frustrating that the line between science & faith is blurred in this issue.

110

Okay, if microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn’t, then why do we find dinosaur bones that are hundreds of millions of years old, but we only find human bones that are 4 or 5 million years old?

If there have always been humans then where are their bones? And where are all the dog & iguana bones from 300 million years ago?

If believe (as I do) that there were no dogs or humans 300 million years ago then where did they come from? If you believe that microevolution happens then what is blocking you from believing in macroevolution? Is one just not an extension of the other?

If you believe that there were dogs & humans (or any other animal living now for that matter) 300 million years ago, then how do you explain the lack remains?

111

[quote]Killa Cam wrote:
Haney

What I am saying is that blind faith is the only motivation for a person to believe in ID, and that ID is not a scientific theory.

Science is a process of knowing. It is characterized by observation, accumulation of data, and reptition of results.

Never, ever has there been any type of scientific observation or testing done to back up ID. There never will be either. That’s because there’s no way of knowing if there was an intelligent designer. This is why I think ID is such a cop-out.

Most IDers argue by challenging people to prove them wrong, then when we can’t it’s a victory. That’s their trick, because it’s set up so they can’t lose.

There is nothing scientific about ID, and it does not stand up to the criteria the scientific community demands a legitimate theory have.

I can tell you I believe the world was created by an invisible flying spaghetti monster. There’s nothing to indicate I’m wrong, but it seems unreasonable for me to think it’s right.

Also, IDers can easily change the rules of their game so that they win. Any indications that ID might be misled can be countered with “well that’s just part of the design”.

I don’t want to impose on anybody’s right to believe in whatever they want, but I find it frustrating that the line between science & faith is blurred in this issue.[/quote]

What part of my post disagrees with this post? I have never said ID was a science. My problem is with some of your earlier statements that would make one assume that ID is against Evolution, and it is not. It is an adapting theory that allows for a “God of the gaps”.

I agree that it does not belong in science class, but neither does atheistic dogma. In my opinion from what I have heard from IDer’s is that is their real problem, and I agree with them on that.

The best thing to do is to make a formal statement when talking about this subject that states science can’t prove, or disprove God. Neither side would be happy, but sometimes it is best that way.

Don’t be to biased both sides have an agenda.

112

[quote]haney wrote:
Killa Cam wrote:
Haney

What I am saying is that blind faith is the only motivation for a person to believe in ID, and that ID is not a scientific theory.

Science is a process of knowing. It is characterized by observation, accumulation of data, and reptition of results.

Never, ever has there been any type of scientific observation or testing done to back up ID. There never will be either. That’s because there’s no way of knowing if there was an intelligent designer. This is why I think ID is such a cop-out.

Most IDers argue by challenging people to prove them wrong, then when we can’t it’s a victory. That’s their trick, because it’s set up so they can’t lose.

There is nothing scientific about ID, and it does not stand up to the criteria the scientific community demands a legitimate theory have.

I can tell you I believe the world was created by an invisible flying spaghetti monster. There’s nothing to indicate I’m wrong, but it seems unreasonable for me to think it’s right.

Also, IDers can easily change the rules of their game so that they win. Any indications that ID might be misled can be countered with “well that’s just part of the design”.

I don’t want to impose on anybody’s right to believe in whatever they want, but I find it frustrating that the line between science & faith is blurred in this issue.

What part of my post disagrees with this post? I have never said ID was a science. My problem is with some of your earlier statements that would make one assume that ID is against Evolution, and it is not. It is an adapting theory that allows for a “God of the gaps”.

I agree that it does not belong in science class, but neither does atheistic dogma. In my opinion from what I have heard from IDer’s is that is their real problem, and I agree with them on that.

The best thing to do is to make a formal statement when talking about this subject that states science can’t prove, or disprove God. Neither side would be happy, but sometimes it is best that way.

Don’t be to biased both sides have an agenda.

[/quote]

Hey haney! I know you say ID does not say that evolution could not have happened. However, nearly every proponent of ID (at least in the public eye) advances ID by trying their best to shoot holes in evolution. So it could easily be mistaken that ID is anti-evolution.

I have no problem with saying that evolution happened, but that it was God’s way. Science could not say whether or not God had anything to do with it, assuming his methods are subtle. Conversely, there is nothing in the ToE that says whether or not God had anything to do with it.

113

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:

Hey haney! I know you say ID does not say that evolution could not have happened. However, nearly every proponent of ID (at least in the public eye) advances ID by trying their best to shoot holes in evolution. So it could easily be mistaken that ID is anti-evolution.
[/quote]

I agree most of them are on that side of it. There is a small movement with in that believes in TE, and I am trying to keep everyone from blanketing the whole group.

I agree 100% and up to this point I thought my post had been clear that science can’t determine that, and that it does not determine that. I am sorry if any of my posts were misleading.

114

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
haney wrote:
Killa Cam wrote:
Haney

What I am saying is that blind faith is the only motivation for a person to believe in ID, and that ID is not a scientific theory.

Science is a process of knowing. It is characterized by observation, accumulation of data, and reptition of results.

Never, ever has there been any type of scientific observation or testing done to back up ID. There never will be either. That’s because there’s no way of knowing if there was an intelligent designer. This is why I think ID is such a cop-out.

Most IDers argue by challenging people to prove them wrong, then when we can’t it’s a victory. That’s their trick, because it’s set up so they can’t lose.

There is nothing scientific about ID, and it does not stand up to the criteria the scientific community demands a legitimate theory have.

I can tell you I believe the world was created by an invisible flying spaghetti monster. There’s nothing to indicate I’m wrong, but it seems unreasonable for me to think it’s right.

Also, IDers can easily change the rules of their game so that they win. Any indications that ID might be misled can be countered with “well that’s just part of the design”.

I don’t want to impose on anybody’s right to believe in whatever they want, but I find it frustrating that the line between science & faith is blurred in this issue.

What part of my post disagrees with this post? I have never said ID was a science. My problem is with some of your earlier statements that would make one assume that ID is against Evolution, and it is not. It is an adapting theory that allows for a “God of the gaps”.

I agree that it does not belong in science class, but neither does atheistic dogma. In my opinion from what I have heard from IDer’s is that is their real problem, and I agree with them on that.

The best thing to do is to make a formal statement when talking about this subject that states science can’t prove, or disprove God. Neither side would be happy, but sometimes it is best that way.

Don’t be to biased both sides have an agenda.

Hey haney! I know you say ID does not say that evolution could not have happened. However, nearly every proponent of ID (at least in the public eye) advances ID by trying their best to shoot holes in evolution. So it could easily be mistaken that ID is anti-evolution.

I have no problem with saying that evolution happened, but that it was God’s way. Science could not say whether or not God had anything to do with it, assuming his methods are subtle. Conversely, there is nothing in the ToE that says whether or not God had anything to do with it.
[/quote]

Also most proponents of ID are not scientific in their approach to what should be taught in the class room. So that would explain the public’s opinion.

I think ID should be a broad term used by believers. It however has taken on a fringe movement. sigh

115

[quote]Killa Cam wrote:

I’m not an “intelligent design” specialist. I never said that I was. I don’t believe in macro evolution. Obviously micro evolution takes place. You obviously didn’t see the humor in my screen name. Yes emus are birds that can’t fly, but they are still birds. Maybe they MICRO evolved that way to adapt to their surrounding environment. Maybe they didn’t need to fly where they ended up.

But I’m sure the anti God people will try to take any kind of change in anything to try and somehow convince everyone that we people never used to be people.

All in all though, anybody who thinks that this planet and everything in it is not intelligent is out of their minds and not a logical person.

Okay, if microevolution happens but macroevolution doesn’t, then why do we find dinosaur bones that are hundreds of millions of years old, but we only find human bones that are 4 or 5 million years old?

If there have always been humans then where are their bones? And where are all the dog & iguana bones from 300 million years ago?

If believe (as I do) that there were no dogs or humans 300 million years ago then where did they come from? If you believe that microevolution happens then what is blocking you from believing in macroevolution? Is one just not an extension of the other?

If you believe that there were dogs & humans (or any other animal living now for that matter) 300 million years ago, then how do you explain the lack remains?[/quote]

Simple, the dating methods that are used to determine whether something is “800 million years old” or “1 million years old” are FLAWED. The dating methods don’t work. Laugh it up though, which you will.

Despite the FACT that these methods have been proven to not work correctly, they will continue to use them and teach nothing about their errors. They will pass them on as fact and tell you a bone is 50 million years old. They have to, because without their precious dating or their time frames, they would have absolutely NOTHING to go off of.

116

[quote]ScottL wrote:
BB,

There are…holes in the theory of evolution (see Jerry Pournelle’s site for discussion) to varying degrees. However admitting them (and admitting there may be an inteligent cause) is kinda like…oh I dunno…admitting that global warming ain’t due to man’s carbon dioxide emissions. It’s un PC.[/quote]

Someone probably said this…but what holes exactly???

117

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Hmmm. I suppose I could phrase this differently and see what the responses are:

Should teachers be prohibited from teaching atheism in conjunction with evolution and any other subjects related to the origin of life and the universe in science classes?

In other words, should they be prohibited from claiming or disclaiming divine influence, and just have to stick to the science?

Teachers can not teach that science is atheistic. A teacher can tell a class that they personally do not believe in a god. A teacher can tell a class that they believe in a god or even a Christian faith. A science teacher could even tell kids that they think the complexity of the universe requires a god, but they can’t tell them that it is part of science.

But all in all, its generally better for a teacher to teach objectively in the classroom. If you are Christian, have faith that given facts, kids will think straight. If you are an atheist, have faith that given the facts, kids will think straight. Show them a good example of how to live a dignified life, and teach them as objectively as you can.

I remember a quote from A.C. Clark that sometimes he looked up to the stars and imagined that there were millions of other worlds out there. Other times he looked up at the stars and imagined that we were completely alone in the universe, and that on either account he was left in awe. [/quote]

Surely that all scince should be objective. Thsi fact that you have put is sometimes lost on people, that science and its teaching should be without ego and based on facts/evidence, and if challanged, the challange should be cogent, have evidence and logic.

It is a nobel thing to have a discussion with someone and change your view in light of a reasoned and logical argument. This is what should also be taught.

118

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
MikeTheBear wrote:
Macro evolution has never been proven and it never will. It’s a bunch of scientists that don’t believe in God making up stories and scenerios trying to explain something that never happened because they must find a way to explain everything without including God in any of it, no matter how pathetic and rediculous it sounds.

Evolution and a belief in God are not mutually exclusive. This is something the ID don’t seem to understand.

News flash: The existence of God has never been proven either.

Here’s some irony: the fact that emus are birds that can’t fly kind of conflict with intelligent design, don’t you think?

I’m not an “intelligent design” specialist. I never said that I was. I don’t believe in macro evolution. Obviously micro evolution takes place. You obviously didn’t see the humor in my screen name. Yes emus are birds that can’t fly, but they are still birds. Maybe they MICRO evolved that way to adapt to their surrounding environment. Maybe they didn’t need to fly where they ended up.

But I’m sure the anti God people will try to take any kind of change in anything to try and somehow convince everyone that we people never used to be people.

All in all though, anybody who thinks that this planet and everything in it is not intelligent is out of their minds and not a logical person.

[/quote]

Macro evolution is unlikely to have occured, certainly not often. The nalogy is this. We are in the pacific, on a island the size of a postage stamp. Macro evolutions would suggest that if i was to leap from this island i woul land on another one. What is morelikely, i fall in the water or land on another postage stamp. The likelyhood of a huge change resulting in success is low to the extreme. This is seen. Most dramatic mutations result in malformations.

I dont understand your last comment. What do you mean by the world is intelligent? Amazing, yes. intelligent? …

As an anti god person i am on the hunt for god…to shoot him or her or it and mount him/her/it on the wall, as a way of un naturally selecting that particular organism…

119

There is much discussion to the validity of dating. The likelyhood of all dating techniques (C dating etc) all over the world are wrong is unlikely. The multitudes of repeated tests on differnet or similar objects from around the globe, by different people, from different cultures, speaking different languages at different times makes the wholistic falsifying ultimately unlikely.

It was mentioned previously that a molecular biologist stated that when looking at certain proteins the fathomed that evolution is unlikely due to the complexity that they witnessed. This is a common mistake. Firstly, just because he is a molecular biologist does not mean his motivation is not driven elsewhere (strange the "scientists who make such statments based on phenomenological or increadible happenings, as opposed to actually starting to look at the whole picture). Secondly, it is unlikely he actually has a grasp of what is invol;ved in evolution or its processes.

Testability is metioned. Whilst it is not testable, there are possible ways of modeling evolution. There is also the mass of paleotological evidence from all corners around the globe which builds proof (if somone mentions the missing link i will explode, as it will not exist. evolving does not happen in small jumps, just a slow and unrelenting march a a very very ling and slight incline, so missing links would just be one of those small steps. Zoologists are to blame for the missing link argument)

A common micomprehension regarding evolution is randomness. There is indeed randomness (i.e. mutations in protein sequences) but these random processes are modified and refined by a wholy non random process, that of natural selection. In combination they are what gives rise to the world what we see around us. Many creationists (and many non darwinian scientists…if i am an anthropologist, should i look at a moleule and deride it and say “thats not so…” because i dont really understand it)…make the mistake of thinking that things happen by chance.

That the eye just appeared by random. The analogy i am stealing is a tornado goes through a scrap yard and at the end a fully functioning 747 is the result. That is what the eye appearing is like. and no less, this lack of understanding means that this would have to happen, in the case of the eye, no less than 40 times around the planet. What about everything else, like the brain…!

Lastly, i think Haney eluded to this, is the idea that the designer now didnt design the world, nay, universe (i mean, as if designing 40 varieties of eye wasnt enough…!) y setting evolution in progress. This is throwing out some key tennants of religious belief, i.e. the universe was born in 7 days, or 6 coz the union protested…or something. Anyway, if we are dropping that idea, then lets drop the whole bloody lot!

But ID is a proposterous idea that has no place in the teaching in public schools anywhere on the planet. It should be left in churches so the message cannot be misconstrued as anything else than religious postulation from a book. If teachers who should know better (science teachers, in this example) do this then they should be banned from teaching.

This has happened in 1 school in the UK, to huge outcry from some very prominent people and rightly so. Teaching should be based on our best concepts of what actually is known, rather than speculations. Just imagine if i was a history teacher and taught the children that the roman empire never existed.

120

Simple solution:

Both Evolution and ID should be left to their respective places of worship.

Evolution – to the Humanists and Atheists out there.

ID – to the churches.

Both are “religious” concepts because both ask you to take a leap of faith since WE WERE NOT THERE and there is no way to verify any of it. Pure and simple Evolution is the “religion” of the Atheist and Creationism is the religion of the believer in God.

As a firm believer in God, I trust Him and the Bible as His Word. I cannot make anyone believe this – it is a work of God to have faith. But it is not science in the purest sense of the word.

So, if you agree to remove evolution from the science class, I would agree to not press for ID or Creationism. However, if you continue to want to indoctrinate our youth with your religious ideas, then certainly we have the right to present our religious ideas as well. After all, the government cannot favor one religion over another, now can they?

You cannot have it both ways…