As a professional scientist, my opinion on ID in public science classes is this: Tell the kids that one theory is that an all powerful being can do anything it wants, including laying false leads, and that if that’s the case, there’s really nothing to explain; Anything is possible. After the 30 seconds it takes to explain that, they can proceed with the next theory and examine those false leads.

Honestly, I pretty much agree, except the bias that your tone reveals. In my limited reading of the ID community theres not much assertion as to mechanics of creation or age of universe or anything. Simply that information requires intelligence and that “somehow” God must be behind creation. As for the “false leads” you refer to, I think that such comments are perhaps appropriate for strict young earth people, but I don’t think that many intelligent Christians really beleive God threw in a bunch of rabbit trails to “throw us off”. I think that we ought to continue to “do science” as far as we can, I just think that we can’t assume that we will be able to find all the answers with purely a naturalistic worldview.

So in essence, yes, science class should be reserved for “doing science” not religious speculation. Thus not much more is needed than 30 seconds of “All this assumes that only natural phenomenon are at work here, and our theroies are only as good as that assumption.” And then move on and continue “doing science.”

I did the Jesus thing for awhile. I determined that it may be right or it may be wrong, but odds are I won’t find out until I die, if ever. I figure that if there is a god who can do anything, then anything is possible. This includes the possibility that a god would make up a bunch of different religions and say that each one is the only true religion and then watch in glee as terror runs rampant. Better yet, the god could make the religious texts so vague and contadictory that hundreds of denominations could spring up in each religion and then proceed to reek havoc on the members of there own religion as well as the opposing religions. I find that much more believable than a “good” god allowing such things to happen in its own religion. If a god were to allow such things to happen, the god could hardly be considered good. I would, in fact, consider them a sinner. As both a god and sinner, leading by example, the god would be condoning sin. If that god were to condone and condemn sin at the same time, that god would be a hypocrite. Who wants to worship a hypocrite?

Now look what you did. You made me scoff at religion in general. Now to me fair, let’s look at science. What is the origin of the universe, life, etc? It just ummmm… happened. SCOFF SCOFF SCOFF!!! Each is a believable at the other.

As a professional scientist, my opinion on ID in public science classes is this: Tell the kids that one theory is that an all powerful being can do anything it wants, including laying false leads, and that if that’s the case, there’s really nothing to explain; Anything is possible. After the 30 seconds it takes to explain that, they can proceed with the next theory and examine those false leads.

Thanks for the link about The Flying Spagetti Monster! Finally a religion that makes sense!

I am of the belief, however, that The Flying Spagetti Monster would never condone such a disgrace as tomato sauce! Tomatoes are the root of all evil!!!!! The Flying Spagetti Monster sacrificed his own son, The Jolly Meatball (or TVP depending upon your denomination), so that we could be forgiven our tomato transgressions. Just think, if it were not for The Jolly Meatball, all of you tomato eaters would be bound for the deepest, darkest dungeons of Hell!

Thanks. Just thought I’d stick this here where you’re likely to see it.)

Ressurection of Jesus: No proof this actually happened. The Bible does not count as proof, else I could point to Lord Of The Rings as proof that elves existed.
Life: I’m not an abiogenesis expert. I can only point at pages like the one I pointed at previously that describe in detail what biochemistry experts have found. There are a number of theories about the origin of life. See, e.g. this Wikipedia article.
Love: Chemical reactions inside the brain.
Beauty: What is beauty? As they say, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” There is no standard for beauty, some people find beauty in things others would find repulsive. Further, it’s probably tempered by cultural values and upbringing, and can be boiled down to chemical reactions in the brain, just like every other emotion.
Homosexuality: There’s some evidence that genes for homosexuality could be beneficial. Studies in bonobo chimpanzees show that homosexual behaviour can be some kind of “social cement”, helping out the social elements in the group and making the group stronger as a whole. Female relatives of gay men, on their mother’s side, had more children than female relatives of heterosexual men.
Morality: There is no such thing as a standard morality across humanity. In some cultures cannibalism was considered moral. In some cultures rape was considered moral. In some cultures stoning was considered moral. In some cultures human sacrifice was considered moral. Most of us in the Western world would consider all of these things “immoral” or “wrong” or even “evil”, but other cultures haven’t and wouldn’t. Who are we to say that our current western morality is “right”?

I cannot argue against your personal life experiences.

“God exists” is not the most straightforward answer. Why should the Christian god be the right answer? What about the Pantheon of Greek gods? Or Norse gods? Or Native American gods? If the Bible says that the universe was created in seven days, why is that more right than the earth, underworld, and night coming about from the mixing of Chaos and Eros? Or being hatched from an egg?

But you did claim that there is not any scientific evidence for a creator, whereas you wouldn’t have made such a definative statement about an electron.

My main point wasn’t related to the quality of evidence for or against God, or even our ability to produce it, but that the very idea of scientific evidence excludes the possibilty of “discovering” God, if we only are willing to consider natural phenomenon.