If ID is taught in a scientific context, then I have to say that the ACLU’s opposition to it is justified, though I would prefer a scientific organization rather than a political group arguing this. The reason why ID currently has no place in education is that its advocates have not put forth any predictive falsifiable claims that would allow us to test for design, much less any experimental data supporting such claims. Because (as far as I know) we don’t have any means by which to observe, infer, and predict empirical results from an ID theoretical framework, it does not count as science.

I actually agree with you more than I was able to communicate.

My point was there is also no falsifiable way to prove anything as far as the big bang is concerned. The conditions at that time are unknowable and untestable.

I understand your point about being 2 topic. This is the same point I make to others when the discussions of creation vs evolution come up… they are 2 different topic. For some reason, a lot of people don’t understand this. Science offers zero explanation for the “origins of it all”, making any attempt to do so an element of faith as much as the position of creationism is.

But I agree that ID should not be in a science class. I assume you would not be opposed to it being presented in another framework?

Who cares what the ACLU says about science education? Let’s ask the biology teachers. All competent biology teachers agree with this famous quote: “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” It’s impossible to properly teach biology without making evolution a major part of every single lesson every single day.

Evolution is the only scientific explanation for the diversity of life. All alternate explanations are religious ideas, and competent biology teachers would rather quit their jobs than be forced to preach somebody else’s religious beliefs.

Intelligent design is the idea that scientists should be allowed to invoke supernatural magic to solve scientific problems. That’s not doing science. That’s preaching. The author of this article is nuts if he thinks he can force biology teachers to become preachers.

By the way, evolution is not a “view”. It’s a scientific fact. There are many facts in evolutionary biology and those facts are the strongest facts of science. The only people who have a problem with those facts are uneducated religious extremists like the author of this article.

Yes it is, and it is valid in that there is plenty of empirical evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory#Observational_evidence) that verifies the predictions and implications stemming from its claim that, with respect to an initial condition of the early universe being a super-dense highly-energetic mass, our universe continues to expand to this day.

I fail to see why you bring this up. The big bang and evolutionary theories stand independent of one another. This is like discussing the theory of computation (the study of the properties of algorithms) when trying to refute electromagnetic theory (the study of how charges react to other masses and their respective electric and magnetic forces).

Is the “Big Bang” taught as a science topic?

“Evolution must be taught, and other options, such as intelligent design, must be silenced.”

If ID is taught in a scientific context, then I have to say that the ACLU’s opposition to it is justified, though I would prefer a scientific organization rather than a political group arguing this. The reason why ID currently has no place in education is that its advocates have not put forth any predictive falsifiable claims that would allow us to test for design, much less any experimental data supporting such claims. Because (as far as I know) we don’t have any means by which to observe, infer, and predict empirical results from an ID theoretical framework, it does not count as science.

For an example of a predictive claim that would disprove evolution’s central claim of descent with modification, all one has to do is find a cat fossil, for instance, perform genetic sequencing on it to confirm that it is indeed a cat, but show that the fossil is older than the evolutionary forerunners to cats. This would demonstrate that the organism arose spontaneously, thereby contradicting evolution.

Whats your point?

You’re against standards for food regulation?