All ID tries to do is say that the scientific evidence points to order and design. Random, meaningless, unguided accident cannot explain the complexity of biological systems.
**The natural evidence absolutely does point to order and design, and if you did not learn the order and design present in the systems that cause evolution, you were poorly taught. Evolution is not random accident. It fully incorporates and is based on a wonderful complexity of interactions from the molecular level up.
**
Why is atheism the only acceptable worldview allowed in school? If evolution is a theory and ID is a theory, why can’t both be presented as theories about the origin of life? As long as we are careful to subtract any denominational distinctives about the nature of God I do not see the problem with having intellectual diversity on the theory of the origin of life. If ID is excluded for HS and college courses (and it is excluded even in higher ed) how can we refine each other’s arguments?
**Not being present in your school. I cannot comment on how the material was presented. But not mentioning God is not the same as atheism. ID cannot be brought up in a science class because it is not science, and because there exists no concrete evidence for it as a scientific theory. It is a philosophy which deals with how the natural processes which we observe might be controlled, but likewise, people could come up with (and have) the “theory” that we are all part of a video game and nothing more than binary code in a computer. Yet, we don’t present that in science class either…because there is no natural evidence that such is true. However, in philosophy class, people write papers on just such subjects.
Science is only one tool in our tool box, and it has its place, but it is not the only tool or the best tool for every aspect of life. I teach my students that in science class. Here is a useful tool, apply when necessary, but don’t throw out your other tools.
Unfortunately, many people too willingly give up their power to judge and discern to anything they think might “save” them. Many people have made a god of science. They do not understand the nature of science, that it changes, that it does not provide the final answer, nor does it CLAIM TO.
People’s personal choice to place science in the place of god is unfortunate however bringing religion into the science classroom to “balance” this is not the remedy.
I think that BETTER science education is the answer, not muddying the waters even more. Part of the role of a science educator is to teach the limits of science, as well as the benefits. I am sorry that this key part was left out of your education.
cheddar
**
