I, too, believe that different theories of our creation should be taught in school. I personally believe that God created the world. I believe he created man in his image. I just don't know if it took seven days as we count days now, or if it took millions of years. No matter how we got here or how long it took, I know there is a higher power and we are loved.

For many who know me here I will first apologize for my coming comments BUT
Using the phrase "intelligent design" in place of God just shows how pathetic our society can get when arguing points. I have watched/read this discussion at a distance because I find it sadly funny every time I see this phrase.

We are talking about God and should religion be taught in school along side evolution and the other sciences. I find it laughable to here a person condemn political correctness and then talk about intelligent design. Even Carol Dunn went straght to using God.

If religion is taught in away that explains how all religions function and how they see the world and their place in it then I agree or would accept this. But if you are talking about teaching only christianity and in a manner as is taught in a church then I find this wrong. This for me is trying to bring religion into the school which is my opinion is not the place for it. That is why we have churches and why what the child learns about God at home is critical.

Religion for me is about Faith and church and home is where that is to be taught not in a school.

Last as one person put it many of these sciencetist in their attempt to explain the world are not doing so to proove God doesnt exit but to better explain and understand the world we live in as created by God. I bleive in God but I also do not discount evolution so where does that leave me.

mr.hayes,
" That is why we have churches and why what the child learns about God at home is critical. ".......
i completely agree with this statement, logically why would i expect a teacher in school to assume thatresponsibilty...not to mention that the teacher may be agnostic or even atheist.
" I bleive in God but I also do not discount evolution so where does that leave me. "..........
where that seems to leave you, is in a position that is at odds with what the bible teaches (i.e.creation vs evolution).

I find it strange that people would deny that some form of higher intelligece created all that we see around us. Of course many want only to make sure that God is not given credit as being the Creator for that is Christian and might offend someone.
They deny that there could be any such greater intelligence and claim all was but an accident of time and space colliding or some other vicarious means of becoming.

In my studies I have read and studied stories of creation by a "greater power" through out civilization. Here are a few excerpts from the Native American stories and then the link for those who are interested in seeing that it is not only "Christians" who have the same story of creation.
When you have finished ask yourself how these ancient people have the same creation story that "Christians" have. Could it be that there is more to the "intelligent design thought" than is given credit?

---------------------=======---------=========
Long, long ago, the Creator, the Great Chief Above, made the world. Then he made the animals and the birds and gave them their names--Coyote, Grizzly Bear, Deer, Fox, Eagle, the four Wolf Brothers, Magpie, Bluejay, Hummingbird, and all the others.

When he had finished his work, the Creator called the animal people to him. "I am going to leave you," he said. "But I will come back. When I come again, I will make human beings. They will be in charge of you."

The Great Chief returned to his home in the sky, and the animal people scattered to all parts of the world.

------------------------------------------------

GISOOLG story according to the MicMac Indians

Gisoolg is the Great Spirit Creator who is the one who made everything. The work Gisoolg in Mik'Maq means " you have been created ". It also means " the one credited for your existence".
--------+---------+------------+-------+-----------

Native American creation stories explain the origin of the world as well as establish how people were to live and worship. This one has, interestingly enough, the 7 day cycle.

Long ago, before there were any people, the world was young and water covered everything. The earth was a great island floating above the seas, suspended by four rawhide ropes representing the four sacred directions. It hung down from the crystal sky. There were no people, but the animals lived in a home above the rainbow. Needing space, they sent Water Beetle to search for room under the seas. Water Beetle dove deep and brought up mud that spread quickly, turning into land that was flat and too soft and wet for the animals to live on.
Grandfather Buzzard was sent to see if the land had hardened. When he flew over the earth, he found the mud had become solid; he flapped in for a closer look. The wind from his wings created valleys and mountains, and that is why the Cherokee territory has so many mountains today.
As the earth stiffened, the animals came down from the rainbow. It was still dark. They needed light, so they pulled the sun out from behind the rainbow, but it was too bright and hot. A solution was urgently needed. The shamans were told to place the sun higher in the sky. A path was made for it to travel--from east to west--so that all inhabitants could share in the light.
The plants were placed upon the earth. The Creator told the plants and animals to stay awake for seven days and seven nights. Only a few animals managed to do so, including the owls and mountain lions, and they were rewarded with the power to see in the dark. Among the plants, only the cedars, spruces, and pines remained awake. The Creator told these plants that they would keep their hair during the winter, while the other plants would lose theirs.
People were created last. The women were able to have babies every seven days. They reproduced so quickly that the Creator feared the world would soon become too crowded. So after that the women could have only one child per year, and it has been that way ever since.
For those who are interested to see how other people explain creation who certainly were not "Christianized" at the time their stories were told, here is an interesting link. Enjoy and good Reading.

http://www.worldandi.com/public/1998/cljul98.htm

If Intelligent Design proponents want ID taught in schools, then they should come up with a coherent scientific theory, make some predictions that can be tested empirically, and do the experiments necessary to gather the evidence to support their view, like every other accepted scientific theory has done. They should not be trying to circumvent the scientific process by jumping directly into the classroom.

hayes, it's good to see you again!

It doesn't seem to me that evolution and creationism (or ID or whatever) are mutually exclusive. The Bible says God created the world in so many days, then rested. I think Carol gets at something valid when she remarked about "as we count days now." Does anyone have a grasp of how long eternity is? I know I don't. The millions of years that the earth seems to have been around have GOT to be just a flash of a spark when you talk in terms of infinity. It seems extremely possible that God is still creating to this second, but that due to our human limitations of perception we see a long, slow progression of "evolution."

Intelligent Design should definitely be taught in schools.

However, I want my views presented as well. Kids need to know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster had an integral part in the creation of our world- we owe our complex biology to the touch of His noodly appendage.

For, you see, the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster long ago, beginning first with mountains, trees, and midgets. All false evidence of evolution was planted by the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a way of revealing who was good and righteous.

Even the most brief examination of the facts will allow even the most skeptical observer to acknowledge yet another of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's main teachings- that global warming, hurricanes, and earthquakes are caused by the decline in the numbers of Pirates.

This new way of looking at the world desparately needs to be taught in school science classes, for without the knowledge of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, kids' scientific education would be horrifically limited to logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

RAmen.

Hindu creation stories have the world sitting on the backs of three elephants, that are in turn standing on the back of a giant tortoise. If we teach Intelligent Design in our public school science classes, are we also prepared to teach that the world really is supported by three elephants standing on a tortoise?!

Humor aside, and though I believe in a divine act of creation by will of God, I do not trust the Intelligent Design radicals anymore than I trust the evolution/Darwin radicals. It is NOT, and never has been, a matter strictly about teaching the truth on how we got here. It almost always devolves into which side is going to have more power over the other, as is just about everything else in this world. The more objective approach would be to simply accept that we ARE here, now, and to try and understand and appreciate the things around us instead of trying to exploit them for sake of our own lusts for power. One's disbelief in a literal six-day creation is not ever defined as something that will keep you out of God's grace. Neither would holding to the notion that God's hand was involved in every aspect of creation mean a total divorce from the laws of reason.

Bottom line: both evolution and Intelligent Design are religious beliefs, and being that neither can be readily tested under scientific conditions, both are alien to sincere scientific inquiry.

"Bottom line: both evolution and Intelligent Design are religious beliefs, and being that neither can be readily tested under scientific conditions, both are alien to sincere scientific inquiry."

Evolution is the product of sincere scientific inquiry, sir. Therefore, your argument is bunk.

Try again, and maybe the Flying Spaghetti Monster will guide your hand to a relevant argument.

RAmen.

And if the Big Bang theory which coincides with evolution is to be considered then I offer this question. If, the earth, stars, sun, moon etc was created by a huge explosion what controled the explosion to keep everything from being blown into tiny particles of matter or how was the "bang" controled to insure that the earth, stars, moon, sun etc would be as they are? An accident? I think not!
Now when theory can explain the control of the "bang" I will then give consideration to it as something more than just another explanation.
The Native American's story theory is just as good as the "big bang" if not more intelligent since it does give some power greater than man's miniscule brain credit for creation.

Denizen, can you cause evolution to happen in a laboratory? I'm not talking about creating a new strain of penicillin here: I mean cause to happen a radical alteration of form or function within an organism from one generation to the next.

"Denizen, can you cause evolution to happen in a laboratory?"

Yes. Yes I can. But it'll take a while- probably a few million years. I hope you brought a book or something :P

While we're waiting, can you petition the Flying Spaghetti Monster to create a new species for us? You can pray to Jesus, too, but he's not known for immediate results.

Two world renown scientiest were talking to God one day.

Scientist: We have discovered how to create man all over again only this time with none of the defects that you built into him.

God: Is that so.

Scientist: We are ready to show you just how far we have come.

God: Well, go right ahead.

The scientist bent over to scoop some dirt from the ground to make man and suddenly he hears:

God: GET YOUR OWN DIRT!!!!!

So much for science creating anything new or improved.

"I mean cause to happen a radical alteration of form or function within an organism from one generation to the next."

If that happened, it would probably be evidence *against* evolution. Evolution is gradual changes over time. Not frogs giving birth to turtles.

mr. produce:

"And if the Big Bang theory which coincides with evolution is to be considered then I offer this question. If, the earth, stars, sun, moon etc was created by a huge explosion what controled the explosion to keep everything from being blown into tiny particles of matter or how was the "bang" controled to insure that the earth, stars, moon, sun etc would be as they are?"

It's funny that you say the big bang coincides with evolution. Many creationists and IDers actually claim that it supports the idea of a creator, since it shows that our universe had a begining at a specific point in time.

As for your question, nothing "controlled" the big bang to keep everything from being blown into "tiny particles of matter." In fact, shortly after the big bang there wasn't anything except a rapidly expanding "soup" of matter and anti-matter. There weren't even any atoms yet. In other words, "tiny particles" are all there were.

Stew, some recommended reading.
The Big Bang theory is certainly the basis for those who take evolution as the way things were created. I offer just these few for your reading:
There are 5,260,000 such articles on the Big Bang

http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm

Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?

http://ssscott.tripod.com/BigBang.html This theory shows that the universe evolved over time. And this was part of the Big Bang theory.

In one of its several variations the big bang cosmological theory is almost universally accepted as the most reasonable theory for the origin and evolution of the universe.

Personally I do not accept the Big Bang theory as being the way the earth and the universe was created. However I have no way of knowing and neither does anyone else as to how all this occured unless there was a controlling factor involved. I happen to believe that it was God who was before time and is and always will be who created this earth and the universe. How he did it? Well I am sure that I will have the opportunity to ask him one day, will you?

"The Big Bang theory is certainly the basis for those who take evolution as the way things were created."

Oh, I never said it wasn't. It just sounded like you thought it was only evolutionists who accepted the big bang theory. If I misunderstood, I apologize.

"Information requires intelligence"

Information has been shown to change, be added, and be subtracted in DNA through random mutations, without the involvement of intelligence. Tree rings record information about the age of a tree and and environmental conditions throughout its life, without intelligent input. So in what sense does information require intelligence?

"design requires a designer."

That's called begging the question.

"Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical."

Could you provide a link showing the calculations you're speaking of, so I can look at the underlying assumptions?

"Well I am sure that I will have the opportunity to ask him one day, will you?"

The implication being that I may not go to heaven because I don't believe the same thing that you do? Why can't we have a rational discussion of the issues instead of engaging in the questioning of my credentials for salvation?

"Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical."

It should be in some of the same links that I posted Stew. And no I did not question the credentials of your salvation. I just put forth the question to ask you about your standing. If your are saved, good. If not I know where to find a place for you to read about the greatest gift ever given to mankind, and if you so choose to accept that gift, then can be sure of having that same opportunity. By no means a put down Stew.

Many years ago I worked with a man who deeply and really believed that black people were the highest form of animal evolution,ie they came from monkeys. Stunned, I asked him then where did white people come from he answered "God".

As I know many others believe this should this be taught in schools as a viable option?

Puhleeze! So many are threatened by Darwin that it is laughable. Is their God is not large enough, powerful enough, or smart enough to have devised evolution?? Spare us the vitriolic attempts to put 'YOUR' religion in the classrooms.

"It should be in some of the same links that I posted Stew."

No, actually, neither of those links mentions any odds of life arising by any means. They only discuss the big bang and don't get into the subject of the origin of life.

This might be the last time I respond to this circular discussion WHICH WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO ANSWER.

I know that God is important to alot of people and I respect that. Belief in God and living out one's belief's are another ball game--but not for me here.

No one has to be threatened by science or how it is defined. I happen to like the various definitions that describe what the scientific process is; the scientific method helps me avoid all of this circular, going nowhere, discussion which we have been reading for some time now. Science is incremental, is mathmatical, is quantitative--it helps us move on productively and constructively. Will we ever have complete scientific knowledge?? No!! but we will have working, testable knowledge which we can build on.

A Person's faith is a person's faith. Depending on how you define faith and science, they might be able to go hand in hand (I guess). When you consider anything that is INFINITE, no matter what it is, mankind, as fallible as he/she is,
WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO COMPREHEND IT ANYWAY.

I like scientific theory because I can tangibly build on it. Faith is a mental and spirital assent to a reality that only each person can define for oneself, using whatever book or church
you want.

We do an injustice to both the scientific method and the consideration Of Intelligent Design (God)
by forcing a relationship that doesn't exist.

Questions such as ultimate cause etc. are philosophical, theological or relgious studies.
I would personally, with defensiveness, rather see the concept(s) presented there.

Telescopes, astronomers,physisists(?) work from finite knowledge--so what comes from what--we will never REALLY KNOW--but we will keep on trying to figure it out and that's good.

In conclusion, as a 62 year old man who has done much reading, contemplation, trying to come up with something that makes sense for me today, I am leaning toward the concept of "eternal matter"
which over "ZILLIONS OF YEARS", has found its own
homeostasis. AND, it's not done yet, it will continue to change and man has to be humble enough to know that whatever technology he/she comes up with, will be at best FINITE--meaning INCONCLUSIVE.

Scientist cannot come up with the origin of life. Darwin failed and those that follow him cannot connect the dots either. Anyone that applies a true scientific study to Darwin and his theories will find them flawed to the point of needing "blind faith" to believe in them. More and more scientist are coming to the conclusion that science cannot explain life and in this void have determined a Creator was involved. What amazes me is that otherwise intelligent people are satisfied to only teach the evolution theory, knowing that it cannot hold up to scientific evaluation and come out as conclusive.

"What amazes me is that otherwise intelligent people are satisfied to only teach the evolution theory, knowing that it cannot hold up to scientific evaluation and come out as conclusive."

No scientific theory is ever conclusive in the sense that it is 100% proven. All theories have only provisional acceptance and are always subject to revision. To reject evolution because we don't know 100% of everything is to hold it to a much higher standard than any other scientific theory.

The fact is that there is plenty of observational and experimental data that supports the theory of evolution. "Otherwise intelligent people" are satisfied to teach it because there are no alternative theories that have anywhere near the amount of scientific data to support them.

Potato,

I don't reject evolution because it is not 100% provable but because many scientist that have dedicated their lives to this subject reject it as flawed and in the case of Haeckel's embryos fradulent. I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone will believe in God and His creation but I would hope that scholars would not want to teach evolution as an absolute when it is not. Forgive me please but I just cannot understand teaching our children science that does not work.

A great text on this issue is Lee Stroebel's "A Case for a Creator." The once Atheist turned Christian has done a magnificent work in this book. Check it out for yourselves. I think you'll find it factual and fascinating.

bgh:

It's true that there are some scientists who reject evolution. However, there will always be people on all sides of an issue, and that includes scientists. If the fact that there are some scientists against evolution is reason for you to reject it, consider how many more scientists actually accept the theory of evolution.

For example, The Institute for Creation Research has a list of scientists who disagree with evolution. Last time I counted, there were about 127 scientists on their list:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=research_sci_faq

Now consider that the National Center for Science Education has a list of over 600 scientists named Steve who support evolution:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

That's just the Steves - over 600 of them.

Regarding Haeckel's embryos, it's also true that they were fraudulent. What you don't acknowledge is that this was discovered long ago, and they are not part of modern evolutionary theory:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

You say that evolution is science that doesn't work. However, you're very fortunate in that it does work, regardless of whether you believe it. Evolutionary theory is the basis for much of modern medicine. It's given us vaccines. It informs researchers who are trying to outmaneuver bacterial resistance to antibiotics. It enables scientists to trace the origins and pathways of disease. Some links to consider:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/bull.html
http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/11/evolution-of-resistance-bacteria-win.html

I have read much of The Case for a Creator. I think it's very telling that all or nearly all of the people Strobel interviews are part of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He interviews no pro-evolution scientists, and makes no attempt to allow for any counter-arguments. Many of the arguments he presents (big bang and fine tuning issues, for example) don't actually deal with evolution at all. Others, such as Haeckel's embryos, are strawmen. Fascinating, maybe. Factual, occasionally. A valid argument against evolution, not at all.