Science Professors Blast Ouster At Tea

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--It seems that most here do agree on one thing that bothers me...

---Church is church and school is school.. Schools have enough problems without trying to make them teach Religion and morals...[ not that a few teacher comments along the way is a problem]. Leave that to families and churches to do the majority of that.. One of the biggest problems I have seen [i spent 30 years in public schools] is that parents want to be "friends" to their kids and often don't have the courage to say NO! when they need to. They also want the schools to do the things that schools were never intended to do... and many parents don't have the courage to do themselves. When things go wrong then they start blaming the schools instead of taking responsibility themselves. There is nothing wrong with after-school activities but when parents don't force/encourage student to do their homework it is a problem. I have even had many say they didn't do it because they were at church for several hours the night before.... and think I should excuse them... and probably thought I was anti-religion because I wouldn't. There is a second-side to those who claim schools and teachers are anti-religion..... It usually involves someone that really is exagerating the situation or wants to do things that should not be done such as promoting a certain Church's belief.

---The reason I posted that site is also to indicate that not all things that some religious "leaders' say or do is all that great either... some are total loons, and are so bad it is obvious.... it is the not so obvious ones that are the problem. People listen to them..

Part II: Keep religous leaders out of government as much as possible. the countries that allow religous leaders to have a lot of control ( or influence) have serious problems..... the middle east is a prime example of this.

---As for evolution... it exists (some here really don't have a clue what it really does... no animal immediately has another animal as a offspring as some are suggesting and laughing about)... I do think the evolution of man (a theory) should avoided as much as possible in public schools, not at the college level.. No one is required to be in college classes...

--- I have idea what this prof really said ...but if they just taught evolution and wasn't trashing religion completely then their removal was insane.

Edited December 18, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Mean Green 93-98]

---Not once have I said MAN evolved from a monkey or anything else. I just don't know... check my post [Dec 15, 1036 PM ] But the intelligent design idea is crazy...

The very thing I am saying is that man did not evolve from a monkey or anything else. So why call it "ridiculous" and "crazy"?

[Mean Green 93-98]

I just don't see how evolution demands, as you say, that a bird becomes a bat. Evolutionary theory is not deterministic.

My point was not so necessarily that a bird become a bat (I was just using what you had said as an example), but that a bird lays eggs of something not a bird. This is certainly what evolution demands. As you note below, your theory demands that plants gave birth to animals.

And, in answer to your last question, yes - we are on the same family tree (not the same branch) as worms. All animals are on the same branch, which is but a smaller part of the same earlier branch where we shared a common ancestor with trees and fungi, and back to the earliest of the eukaryotic cells. This is the concept of "common descent" and it is also a central part of the theory of evolution.

I would like those who have tried to straddle the fence of "theistic evolution" to take note of what Dr. Hughes states above. "A central part (i.e., that which the theory revolves around, essential) of the theory of evolution" is that man, worms, trees, and fungi share a common ancestor. There might be a theological system with which this might harmonize, but the Bible clearly presents God as creating plants, animals, and man "after their kind"; and to reproduce "after their kind."

The only testable explanation I've seen put forth for intelligent design has been the idea of "irreducibly complex", which I believe I covered in an earlier post as being refuted by the evidence.

This is not an affirmative argument for intelligent design. This is a negative argument against evolution, an argument that has not really been refuted. The "refutations" made still fail to provide an explanation of how one person with an open circulatory system could give birth to someone with a closed circulatory system, etc.

The design argument is prima facie. It requires nothing more than common sense. If I find a watch on the ground, I know that it was not produced by an explosion in a gold mine. I know that someone designed it and made it. But how much more intricate is the human body? Great minds have been attempting to design an artificial heart for years; yet we have nothing close to the human heart--yet you are going to say that, ultimately, an explosion or other freak accident of happenstance caused it to happen?

In 1975, a debate took place on the UNT (then NTSU) campus. Thomas Warren, a Gospel preacher, debated Anthony Flew, the foremost atheist debator (who before his death acknowledged the unmistakable validity of the design argument). In that debate, Warren displayed a chart picturing a human hand and a prosthetic hand. Warren then asked Flew if one or both of the pictured hands came as a result of intelligent design. Of course, by his atheistic/evolutionistic viewpoint, Flew was forced to conclude that the vastly inferior prosthetic was created by design; while its archetype, the human hand, came by chance. So the hand with less dexterity, limited range of motion, inability to repair itself of cuts and burns, and a frail replica of the original is the only one with skilled design behind it?

This was just one of the many arguments that led to a clear defeat for atheism/evolution at that debate.

[UNTflyer]

My point was not so necessarily that a bird become a bat (I was just using what you had said as an example), but that a bird lays eggs of something not a bird. This is certainly what evolution demands.

I couldn't read the rest of your post. Evolution does not demand that a cat give birth to a monkey... it is ridiculous.

[untgirl04]

I would like those who have tried to straddle the fence of "theistic evolution" to take note of what Dr. Hughes states above. "A central part (i.e., that which the theory revolves around, essential) of the theory of evolution" is that man, worms, trees, and fungi share a common ancestor. There might be a theological system with which this might harmonize, but the Bible clearly presents God as creating plants, animals, and man "after their kind"; and to reproduce "after their kind."

This is not an affirmative argument for intelligent design. This is a negative argument against evolution, an argument that has not really been refuted. The "refutations" made still fail to provide an explanation of how one person with an open circulatory system could give birth to someone with a closed circulatory system, etc.

This is exactly where I differ from evolutionists. Although, as I said in a previous post, I believe God created several templates of creation, "animals of a kind" if you will, that He has since allowed to evolve. Maybe those templates came from one common ancestor, maybe not. As I also stated in a previous post, I think the real debate goes back to the whole origin issue. It doesn't really matter to me if through evolution God created man from a unicellular organism in six God-days, or if He created every species as it exists right now out of thin air in 15 minutes. What is important to me is that I believe that God created this universe and put mankind here for a reason, and that His mercy extends to me in that I can experience His love and share this world. Maybe one day we will all learn exactly how all this went down, maybe not. Perhaps my indifference to this question is why I didn't pursue science outside my degree...

[3XNTGRAD]

This is not an affirmative argument for intelligent design.

Could you please provide me with an affirmative argument for intelligent design that can be tested in a scientific way? I thought that was the point of "irreducibly complex", for which, despite your protestations to the contrary, the prime example (the bacterial flagellum) has been refuted by the evidence.

So the hand with less dexterity, limited range of motion, inability to repair itself of cuts and burns, and a frail replica of the original is the only one with skilled design behind it?

This was just one of the many arguments that led to a clear defeat for atheism/evolution at that debate.

I will not disagree that all life is wonderful and complex. This diversity and intricacy is part of the joy of studying biology. But, complexity can be the result of natural processes and common descent, so this does not conflict in any way with the Theory of Evolution. (And, just for the record, not all biologists or people who accept evolutionary theory are atheist, and the theory itself is neutral with respect to religion or lack of religion)

If evolution is defeated, why is it still a major driving force in modern biological study and research publications? If you go back to the original letter that was the cause for this thread in the first place, you will note that a search of 12 leading science journals found 29,639 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution published since 1975. The same search done for "Intelligent Design" finds only 24 articles, all of which are critical of the concept. The science of evolutionary research is alive and well, contrary to your reports of its death.

[3XNTGRAD]

It doesn't really matter to me if through evolution God created man from a unicellular organism in six God-days, or if He created every species as it exists right now out of thin air in 15 minutes.

There is nothing in the first part of your statement that contradicts anything that I've said.

Science cannot prove or disprove anything outside of the natural world. If God created everything and did so using all the natural laws we observe, then science would be unable to distinguish this. That is why science in general and evolution in specific is really neutral on religious issues.

Science is not neutral when it comes to literal readings of the bible, because there are contradictions there that we can observe in the natural world (6 human days is not compatible with our measurements of the age of the Earth, etc.).

[eulesseagle]

untgirl04,

God created man in one day and that was related to Moses in terms that Moses could understand.

you have to understand that Moses was no "country bumkin." at one time he was the #2 man under pharoh. Moses was, at one time, the Egyptian Commander in Chief of their army and won many great battles against Egyptian enemies. all that there is to know about Moses is not in the Bible but in other soures of information as is the Red Sea eposode, Sodom and Gamora etc....etc....etc.....

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

God created creatures in kind, see Genesis, Chaper 1. (horse is a kind, monkey is a kind, pig is a kind, rabbits is a kind, fish is a kind, birds are a kind, dogs are a kind and man is a kind).

Phalum = kind

two different kinds, to date, can not procreate with long term living offsprings who procreate.

of course anything is possible in a lab experiment or as my last post in this thread, 10 years ago, sheep and sick cowboys.

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

rocks: other than the axiom of some people are as smart as a box of rocks............and...........if i recall in the two classes of geology and five classes of chemistry and some of the other stuff that i have read, rocks, over time decompose minerally. same types of rocks, and i use rocks in a general term decompose at different rates, over time, as does everything else. geologists only know that all rocks decompose overtime at different rates. therefore, knowing this variable carbon dating is not 100% reliable in determining age of things past. that is why one may read that dates on certain predated objects are in constant revision based upon other pieces of the earth's great puzzle being dated. it is paramont to piecing together a 3-d puzzle.

if you want to test different rates of decomposition buy a pound,each,of hamburger meat at two separate grocery stores and lay them both open in your kitchen and see which one becomes magot infested first. each slab of hamburger will decompose at different rates. when they are both magot infested throw away the hamburger and eat the magots....great source of protein.

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

Some group of DNA scientist came forward a couple years ago and traced human DNA back to one set of parents. Of course they named those parents Adam and Eve. Naturally, evolutionists disagreed.

Even human DNA is a little different in some people and take for example people who are hydrocephalic (enlarged skulls/water on the brain) who either have an extra DNA or one less DNA chromosome.

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

evolution vs creationism: there will always be two differing opinions. my belief is creationism. 3xntgrad is evolutionism. there is nothing that i can say or he can say to change each other's mind on this matter. i can certainly and do respect his belief even though i disagree on certain philosophical principals concerning the gap theory and carbon dating. I think we agree on phylum and how it relates to kind (as mentioned in Genesis 1:1).

[3XNTGRAD]

Some group of DNA scientist came forward a couple years ago and traced human DNA back to one set of parents. Of course they named those parents Adam and Eve. Naturally, evolutionists disagreed.

Even human DNA is a little different in some people and take for example people who are hydrocephalic (enlarged skulls/water on the brain) who either have an extra DNA or one less DNA chromosome.

Please check the original sources before you make these claims. Scientists (evolutionary biologists, to be exact) have studied DNA to trace back to a female progenitor (based on mitochondrial DNA which is primarily passed down from the mother only) and a male progenitor (through Y chromosome studies) of all modern humans. However, nothing indicates that the two were a couple, or even lived within thousands of years of one another (the time range for both studies points to each having lived 100,000-200,000 years ago -- so science has not definitively identified a single couple as the parents of the human race).

Secondly, additional or missing chromosomes is a huge deal, most such conditions are fatal. An extra copy of chromosome 21 is the cause of Down Syndrome, which is not a minor condition.

[untgirl04]

untgirl04,

God created man in one day and that was related to Moses in terms that Moses could understand.

you have to understand that Moses was no "country bumkin." at one time he was the #2 man under pharoh. Moses was, at one time, the Egyptian Commander in Chief of their army and won many great battles against Egyptian enemies. all that there is to know about Moses is not in the Bible but in other soures of information as is the Red Sea eposode, Sodom and Gamora etc....etc....etc.....

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

God created creatures in kind, see Genesis, Chaper 1. (horse is a kind, monkey is a kind, pig is a kind, rabbits is a kind, fish is a kind, birds are a kind, dogs are a kind and man is a kind).

Phalum = kind

two different kinds, to date, can not procreate with long term living offsprings who procreate.

of course anything is possible in a lab experiment or as my last post in this thread, 10 years ago, sheep and sick cowboys.

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

rocks: other than the axiom of some people are as smart as a box of rocks............and...........if i recall in the two classes of geology and five classes of chemistry and some of the other stuff that i have read, rocks, over time decompose minerally. same types of rocks, and i use rocks in a general term decompose at different rates, over time, as does everything else. geologists only know that all rocks decompose overtime at different rates. therefore, knowing this variable carbon dating is not 100% reliable in determining age of things past. that is why one may read that dates on certain predated objects are in constant revision based upon other pieces of the earth's great puzzle being dated. it is paramont to piecing together a 3-d puzzle.

if you want to test different rates of decomposition buy a pound,each,of hamburger meat at two separate grocery stores and lay them both open in your kitchen and see which one becomes magot infested first. each slab of hamburger will decompose at different rates. when they are both magot infested throw away the hamburger and eat the magots....great source of protein.

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

Some group of DNA scientist came forward a couple years ago and traced human DNA back to one set of parents. Of course they named those parents Adam and Eve. Naturally, evolutionists disagreed.

Even human DNA is a little different in some people and take for example people who are hydrocephalic (enlarged skulls/water on the brain) who either have an extra DNA or one less DNA chromosome.

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

evolution vs creationism: there will always be two differing opinions. my belief is creationism. 3xntgrad is evolutionism. there is nothing that i can say or he can say to change each other's mind on this matter. i can certainly and do respect his belief even though i disagree on certain philosophical principals concerning the gap theory and carbon dating. I think we agree on phylum and how it relates to kind (as mentioned in Genesis 1:1).

Not really sure why you're addressing me in your post. However, in reference to Moses, I understand that he was not unintelligent, yet 2 Peter 3:8 says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (NIV) Therefore, a "day" in God's time could quite easily be thousands of years to man. Since God is immortal and time has no meaning, His exact meaning for 6 days may be different than our interpretation.

[Quoner]

Not really sure why you're addressing me in your post. However, in reference to Moses, I understand that he was not unintelligent, yet 2 Peter 3:8 says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." (NIV) Therefore, a "day" in God's time could quite easily be thousands of years to man. Since God is immortal and time has no meaning, His exact meaning for 6 days may be different than our interpretation.

not to go all quoner-scholar on you, but didn't Moses try to pass the buck to Aaron for most of the work God asked of him? I always thought that God making something that grand out of someone as ordinary as moses was kind of the point (and also why he wasn't allowed to enter the Promised Land after he had his moment of pride.)

[TheTastyGreek]

not to go all quoner-scholar on you, but didn't Moses try to pass the buck to Aaron for most of the work God asked of him? I always thought that God making something that grand out of someone as ordinary as moses was kind of the point (and also why he wasn't allowed to enter the Promised Land after he had his moment of pride.)

I'm glad you spent some of your time at Dallas Jesuit kneeling in church.

That contradicts the theory I've been teaching that you spent all your time there kneeling in the men's room.

Let's start a 6 page thread arguing about it! Go forth, internet warriors!

If this doesn't get the lockdown... I can try harder.

[untgirl04]

not to go all quoner-scholar on you, but didn't Moses try to pass the buck to Aaron for most of the work God asked of him? I always thought that God making something that grand out of someone as ordinary as moses was kind of the point (and also why he wasn't allowed to enter the Promised Land after he had his moment of pride.)

You'd be better off addressing the comment to eulesseagle. You're correct that Moses tried to get out of talking to the people, and so God allowed Aaron, Moses's brother to speak for him. However, because Moses was raised in the royal Egyptian household, it stands to reason that he had what passed for a fairly good education. Eulesseagle was arguing my comment that a "day" as described in the Genesis account of creation could be more than what we as humans understand as a 24-hour day. (Moses is the attributed author of Genesis; that's why his name came up.) My comment was more along the lines that evolution and a belief in a divine Creator are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and that the Bible does not necessarily discount any theory of evolution. I referenced 2 Peter to illustrate how elsewhere in the Bible it says that God's sense of time is not necessarily our own.

But kudos for the Bible knowledge.

Edited December 18, 2007 by untgirl04

[Quoner]

But kudos for the Bible knowledge.

I really only wanted to derail.

And for what is worth, Jesuits teach the exact point you are making in regards to science and the creation stories.

Back to the usual obscenity. And a client holiday party! Maybe at the same time!

[UNTFan23]

Perhaps the biggest obstacle for teaching creationism in public schools is that is heavily based on religious beliefs. If creationists can somehow take the religious semantics (good luck with that) out of the science, I think it could be taught as an opposing view to evolution (in the higher grades where it belongs).

Just so long as creationism isn't the only thing taught in school (much like abstinence-only curriculum is in many schools), I know I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it being taught in public schools. Of course, I don't have any kids and I don't reside in Texas right now.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I couldn't read the rest of your post. Evolution does not demand that a cat give birth to a monkey... it is ridiculous.

Uh, Flyer? If down an entire genealogical line of birds, none ever gave offspring to anything other than birds, would they not all remain birds? If so, where does the evolution under discussion take place? Please explain. And please use small words, as it is clear from your post that I am simply not on an intellectual par with you.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Could you please provide me with an affirmative argument for intelligent design that can be tested in a scientific way?

Interesting point. I am not sure how you make the argument “testable.”

To put it simply, the design argument is:

Major premise: If the universe shows evidence of purposeful design, there must be a Designer.

Minor premise: The universe shows evidence of purposeful design.

Conclusion: There must be a Designer.

This argument is obviously valid in its form. I assume you agree with the major premise. So to prove the argument true or false, one would need to prove or disprove the minor premise (I know, I know - in research/experimentation you do not prove or disprove – the evidence either supports or does not support the hypothesis. But since we are talking a logical argument here, I will say prove/disprove). The task for a researcher would be to come up with a tool to determine purposeful design. Maybe this has been done, but I honestly do not know.

So I might agree with you that the argument is, at best, difficult to “test in a scientific way,” i.e., through experimentation. But I believe just as any right-thinking individual could know that the computer on which I am typing shows evidence of purposeful design, any right-thinking individual could likewise determine that the exponentially more advanced human body shows evidence of purposeful design. And, after all, science just means “knowledge.”

I thought that was the point of "irreducibly complex", for which, despite your protestations to the contrary, the prime example (the bacterial flagellum) has been refuted by the evidence.

I read (okay, I skimmed) the article you linked on the bacterium flagellum. I am going to have to read it closer, and find more than I saw, before I can agree with you; because I have read some fairly convincing material the other way.

(And, just for the record, not all biologists or people who accept evolutionary theory are atheist, and the theory itself is neutral with respect to religion or lack of religion)

I cannot agree with you that evolution is neutral on religion. Darwin had a strong anti-religious bias, and atheists’ number one weapon against theism is evolution’s wide acceptance. If it is "neutral," as you say, would you be willing to say that as large a percentage of evolutionary biologists are religious (not counting secular humanism) as in the general population?

If evolution is defeated, why is it still a major driving force in modern biological study and research publications? If you go back to the original letter that was the cause for this thread in the first place, you will note that a search of 12 leading science journals found 29,639 peer-reviewed scientific papers on evolution published since 1975. The same search done for "Intelligent Design" finds only 24 articles, all of which are critical of the concept. The science of evolutionary research is alive and well, contrary to your reports of its death.

You may not be familiar with what happens in debates. Although one side might clearly win, this does not mean that all adherents to the opposing view promptly drop it. I would encourage you to watch or read that debate—I think you would find it enlightening, as I did.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

QUOTE(SCREAMING EAGLE-66 @ Dec 17 2007, 11:34 PM)

---Not once have I said MAN evolved from a monkey or anything else. I just don't know... check my post [Dec 15, 1036 PM ] But the intelligent design idea is crazy...

The very thing I am saying is that man did not evolve from a monkey or anything else. So why call it "ridiculous" and "crazy"?

Holy-Moly... the entire concept of intelligent design contradicts the entire spectrum of evolution. ..... It does exist...as shown by simple organisms (viruses)and our "changing" of agricultural products such as corn..... I guess the biggest problem is what we define as man.... It seems likely [theory again not fact ] that at some point that man and other primates may have had some common ancestors. Just because I don't insist they did, doesn't mean I think they didn't.. It is a theory and it makes sense. At some point this being is defined as MAN. I do not see a problem with God creating man by way of evolution or by any other way. Evolution doesn't contradict a divine being.....like some want to insist.

Part II: Just because Darwin may have been an atheist does not mean the others that believe similar are. It amazes me how some people lump all people together if some happen to believe one certain thing and draw nutty conclusions. This really applies to politics and how one party tries to "paint " the other one. Be a bit open-minded. It irritated me that if someone questioned Iraq had weapons and did not think the invasion was necessary that they were criticized and branded as an unpatriotic socialist by many. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Guess how that turned out..... Just because a person is sitting in the White House, is a member of certain political party, or a member of a particular Church..... doesn't mean he is right.....or wrong.

Edited December 19, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[3XNTGRAD]

Interesting point. I am not sure how you make the argument “testable.”

If it isn't testable, then it isn't science. Thank you for making my point as to why intelligent design has no place in a science classroom.

If it is "neutral," as you say, would you be willing to say that as large a percentage of evolutionary biologists are religious (not counting secular humanism) as in the general population?

Scientific theories do not promote religious ideas. They are explanations of the natural world. And, yes, studies have found that a higher percentage of scientists are non-religious compared to the general population. So, does that mean that the Theory of General Relativity is also not "neutral" or Germ Theory, etc., since scientists who study those are also less religious than the general population? This recent study that surveyed scientists about religion notes that it seems to be less a case of the science making these people less religious, and more the case that people who enter science tend to be less religious to begin with.

You may not be familiar with what happens in debates. Although one side might clearly win, this does not mean that all adherents to the opposing view promptly drop it. I would encourage you to watch or read that debate—I think you would find it enlightening, as I did.

I have said several times that science isn't determined by debates in front of crowds. It is determined by the evidence that supports a concept. How does over 29,000 peer-reviewed evolution articles to 0 for intelligent design do anything except show that ID is not a valid scientific theory.

Have we come full circle in this discussion yet? I'm sure the others reading this exchange probably feel that we aren't adding anything new at this point that we haven't already said.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I'm sure the others reading this exchange probably feel that we aren't adding anything new at this point that we haven't already said.

How about:

----Merry Christmas----

What we do while we are here is far more important than how we got here.

and

-----Happy New Year*----

* year 3 billion...plus or minus a few. ..LOL...

Edited December 19, 2007 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Quoner]

I'm sure the others reading this exchange probably feel that we aren't adding anything new at this point that we haven't already said.

95 replies and no one mentioned what a fun name Dickstein is?

Grow up.

[Mean Green 93-98]

If it isn't testable, then it isn't science. Thank you for making my point as to why intelligent design has no place in a science classroom.

All I was saying is that you were foraying into an area with which I am not very familiar. I couldn't really comment one way or the other on what you had said. And what about the remainder of what I had to say? Again, I am no biologist, but is not science capable of determining criteria to evaluate whether an object shows evidence of purposeful design?

Scientific theories do not promote religious ideas. They are explanations of the natural world.

Darwinian evolution is a means to explain nature by nature alone, i.e., without any supernatural intervention. If there has never been supernatural intervention, what could the god that evolution allows have done to make him God?

Have we come full circle in this discussion yet? I'm sure the others reading this exchange probably feel that we aren't adding anything new at this point that we haven't already said.

Feel free to bow out at any time. To be honest, I've spent way more time making posts on this thread than I have to spend. However, I would appreciate it if you could at least address my question regarding a possible means of testing evidence for design.

[3XNTGRAD]

All I was saying is that you were foraying into an area with which I am not very familiar. I couldn't really comment one way or the other on what you had said. And what about the remainder of what I had to say? Again, I am no biologist, but is not science capable of determining criteria to evaluate whether an object shows evidence of purposeful design?

However, I would appreciate it if you could at least address my question regarding a possible means of testing evidence for design.

Evolutionary theory is a strong and robust explanation of the life we see and is based on the natural processes we can measure and describe. To support intelligent design, you would have to show that something could not have arisen from those processes. No research has shown that, and instead the intelligent design/creation proponents have just made claims that something is too complex and must therefore have been designed. Natural processes produce all kinds of complicated and intricate products, but that doesn't mean those products are being purposefully designed (as a simple example, just look at the beautiful color patterns of a rainbow in the sky, which can be fully explained by the physics of light). If intelligent design proponents want to challenge the current paradigm, then they must provide scientific evidence for their case that stands up to the same scientific rigor as the evidence for the current theory. Just saying that "God did it" is not scientific.

Intelligent design/creationism is a religious viewpoint that does not have any scientific underpinnings. As such, it is not a valid alternative that should be discussed in a public school science course.

I too have spent way too much time on this discussion. I hope we can leave it at this.