The links I provided earlier state it much better, but basically science must turn its back on ID and an "intelligent" god/being/energy/whatever. Science can take no position on the existence of a god or greater intelligence because it can not be tested. ID even in the form you describe does not belong in the science classroom; it belongs in the philosophy classroom. The science classroom can only contain those things that can be tested using scientific method. The fact that we are having this discussion all shows how bad of a science education people are getting. Arguing ID in any form has a place in the science classroom shows a total lack of understanding of what science is and is not. Whether or not God exists is a matter of personal belief, not science. ID is based on the belief that a god or intelligent "being"/energy has control over the universe; this can not be tested and thus is not science.
Ok lets take this a step further. have you ever heard of the Gaia hypothesis. it treats the world as one living organisim. Given the challanges we face today it seems time that goverments and science wake up to the interconnectedness of everything and stop looking at things in a classic reductionist approach and look at the world and the universe ans an entire interconnected system. that is science to me. looking at the big picture.
Is the entire world and universe an interconnected system? Yes it is. Things that happen in space can have an impact on earth. HOWEVER, be careful of what you try to call science. The definition of science isn't up for debate or interpretation. If something does not follow scientific method it is not science -- period. Science requires the collection of empirical knowledge. Science requires that that knowledge, theory, hypothesis be testable and measurable. People really must begin to understand this. If something can not be tested and measured then it can not be proved or disproved via science. As such, science CAN NOT support any belief that there is or is not a god or intelligent force acting upon and controlling the universe because this can not be tested empirically. This is a matter for philosophy and religion. Many scientists believe that there is an intelligent force that guides evolution; however, this is a matter of philosophical and/or religious belief, not science. There is nothing wrong with holding philosophical/religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not fly in the face of empirical knowledge that has been derived scientifically; especially something so fundamental that it affects and is supported by many different scientific disciplines. To claim there is an intelligent force driving and guiding the universe is fine. To try and hold to the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old and that creation took place literally as is described in the Bible flies in the face of everything that is understood in the sciences of geology, paleontology, archeology, astronomy, physics, biology, etc.
I'm and atheist and i believe in evolution. Even tho science can't explain everything. It too is evolving at a very fast rate! And I know that one day it will be able to explain everything. Hope i live to see that day... so i can see how the religious will react?
some people are born handicapped or very ill some people are born without the ability to make children cancer (which is a disease of the body itself from within) kills people in their best years, also children in recent year we had 4 cases of a father who jailed his child and raped her for decades, in 4 different countries people murder one another for money, position, respect, woman's attention, etc' some people the world think that its fine to stone a woman to death just for falling in love some people are born with terrible psychiatric diseases or develop them in some stage of their life hate to people of other ethnical groups / races is a virtue that people are born with. In the modern world, the education system allows people to defeat this instinct, in less advanced regions of the world, this is not the case. two male animals will fight to the death over the right to mate, even if their species is almost extinct.... humankind is going on the right path to make life impossible on earth in the not so very distant future and many more.................. Intelligent design?.............. give me a break.
It's tragic isn't it that in 2009 there are still people who believe there is a debate to be had between science supported by a mountain of evidence and 4000 year old, poorly written creation myth. I sometimes feel sorry for the religious having to defend this infantile shit. I mean, don't they wish their little cult had a more plausible explanation. With all the evidence we have, don't they wish their explanation made just a bit more sense.
stOx. They do wish. Most of them question themselves "how come our picture of the world is so distant from the scientific view?" For this reason, they "adopt" all kinds of pseudo-scientists and other clowns who provide ridiculous "scientific proofs" that their holy scripture co-exist and complement with science. See the countless threads about "proofs" of speed of light, embryology, earth's flatness and other utterly ridiculous and pathetic stuff in this forum only Their ability to properly judge the validity of these "scientific proofs" and materials presented to them is absent: they were not given the tools to work with evidence in a critical, unbiased manner. most of them have no scientific education at all and do not know what modern science means, or "how it works". This way its a win-win situation: Those who cash-in money and power from the stupidity of the crowds "proved" them that religion is not contradictory to science, just to silence the curiosity driven questions and making it die as soon as possible. The crowds for silencing their doubt of believing in these insane stuff which does not make sense according to science, now "proven" to make sense and be "scientific". Who's losing then? humanity as a whole. The inability to judge the validity of these "scientific proofs" presented to the religious person is self-evident: his belief in god is not independently acquired from looking at evidence presented to him and drawing his own conclusion. Instead god is presented to him as a fact by so many people he trust and love, before he can think or even read and write. research show that defying the beliefs and behaviors of your loved ones causes physical mental pain. Also, some theories claim that people are born with the mental infrastructure that willingly and eagerly accept the concept of "god", which is basically something that evolved with time to make human have higher chances of survival. This is why in my attempt to promote thinking (=atheism), my focus is to try to convince religious people that science does not co-exist with religion. Once they will understand this, this would be a first step in starting a transition: starting to think and to doubt all the "truth" and "facts" burnt into their minds from early age. From the theories I link to in previous paragraph, this is a non-natural, difficult and painful transition. The transition in the other direction is much easier. p.s. today is Yom Kippur.