There’s a very good article up at Yahoo! News detailling the origins of Intelligent Design. It’s a pretty fair article, though reading through it I still don’t understand how anyone could not see ID for what it is: creationism with a new name.
The article wraps up with a description of a lawsuit being argued right now. The arguments for both sides are pretty well-put:
The parents, who claim that ID is creationism in disguise, contend that such a requirement is religiously motivated, thus violating the constitutional separation of church and state and the Supreme Court’s ban on creationism in public schools.
Attorneys for the school district argue ID is not a religious belief but a valid scientific theory and that the school district intended only to expose students to views critical of and differing from evolution. The case, in its sixth week, may influence how biology is taught in public schools around the country.
I still maintain my vehement disagreement with the school district in question. ID most definitely is a religious belief, and if it is going to be taught in public schools at all should be taught as such.
(edits made in italics)
It’s a religious belief — and should be taught? I’m confused. What is your own opinion about the separation of church and state?
Also, kicking ID out of schools only ducks the issue of the many gaping holes in evolution — for example, the utter lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Should the evidence against evolution also be taught in schools?
Ah, yes, I meant to write “ID most definitely is a religious belief, and if it is to be taught in public schools, should be taught as such.”
As for gaps in the fossil record, that’s no argument against Evolution at all. For an example argument, I quote from Berkeley:
(cite: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IICgaps.shtml)