Quote:
|
Science cannot prove that we are here by either chance or design, but the scientific evidence can be used to support one or the other.
|
The problem with that is that science doesn't try to prove that we are here by chance. Science only looks at evidence and creates postulates based on the evidence. Using science to support chance or design is no longer science, but belief.
Quote:
|
It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. No one is being forced to believe in God so there's no real violation of separation of church and state.
|
Evolution theory is based on an appraisal of the evidence, and what it shows. Any decent scientist knows that his favorite theory might be proved wrong at any time, and most are ready to start over again should that happen.
Intelligent design is based solely on preconcieved belief based on "Sacred Scriptures", and is solely intended to back up what the Bible says. No believer in Intelligent Design is willing to admit the remotest possibility that he might be wrong. His sole purpose is to see his belief taught no matter how many times he has to change the name or how underhanded he has to be to prove his "truth". The argument presented here, as with most Intelligent Design arguments, isn't based on any real evidence, but on "proving" that the theory of Natural Origin is false. They seem to believe that if they can just do that then the only alternative left is the one they devoutly believe.
I've met (and read the works of) hardcore atheists who do indeed treat their belief as if it were a religion. They are loud but relatively rare. Most atheists are, as described, people who don't see evidence so don't believe. Show them some real evidence and they just might surprise you.
Unfortunately there isn't any.