Did you ever stop to think that people know about Darwin and his theories and might CHOOSE not to believe in them? You seem to automatically assume that just because a significant number of Americans believe in ID that they are ignorant and have no clue as to Darwin's theories of evolution. I for one know about his theories, respect them and peoples' rights to believe in them, but choose to believe in ID. Try taking a pole of those who know/don't know about Darwin's theories, and then we'll talk. To answer your question, we continue to debate this subject because the ID/religious theories have been around since before the time of Darwin. Until one or the other can be proven true without a doubt, this debate will always continue.

And on the day after the seventh day He started having second thoughts.

"Did you ever stop to think that people know about Darwin and his theories and might CHOOSE not to believe in them?"

I did, but people do stupid things like that all the time.

By the way, I'm a devout Catholic, as was Pope John Paul II, who said that evolution and creation aren't mutually exclusive, while ID wasn't science and didn't accurately represent Christian belief anyway. You ID folks might want to actually read something before spouting off on something you don't know anything about.

I'm not surprised by the percentage of ID faithful - after all half of all people are of below average intelligence.

It's amazing that the bible-thumpers beleive that their god is all-powerful and can do anything, except use evolution to achieve his goals - that alone is the one thing god can not do.

It seems to me that the ID supporters have very little faith in their god. My god is smart enough to put a system into place that would allow us to evolve with changes. God's not a dumbass, stop letting him be co-opted by dumbasses.

Well, before I take a poll of people to see if they believe in ID or natural selection, I'll take a poll of them to see if they know how to spell the word poll.

There is a basic aspect of science the first poster just isn't getting: Nothing in science is proven beyond a doubt. It's the way science works. You are able to create testable theories, and one theory holds up better to the tests of scientific inquiry than the others. For example, the theory for the sun being the center of our solar system holds up to scientific inquiry much better than the theory that the Earth is the center of the solar system. The problem with ID is that it is specifically not testable. It very simply says "Life is too complex to be created without a god figure." Thus, it is not a scientific theory. All that ID represents is a group of people who would rather believe in the Bible than in hard, testable scientific data. Which is fine. You can believe whatever you want, no matter how incoherent and moronic it is. But it has no place in the public schools.

I just want to finish by mentioning that I know point did I use the word "fact". The things that are absolutely true facts in the world of math and science are things that are extremely insignificant. Like 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact, but who cares who is above the age of 7?

Interesting, mention ID and everyone starts slamming Christians and Jews by slamming the Bible. It is ignorance to say that those who follow the Bible are the only ones who believe in some sort of ID, there are other religions that have similar beliefs.

Darwin is all around us, I think most (regardless of religion) will agree that evolution, to some extent is a given. The real question is, how did life start.

The idea that all life as we know it evolved from a single life form that showed up billions of years ago (and no one has been able to explain/duplicate anything to create life... if Darwin was correct and science can explain life, we should be able to create the conditions necessary to create life) is just as much a leap of faith as believing in a devine being creating life.

In essence, believing all evolved from one, is taking no more of a leap of faith than believing life was created by a devine being. Neither can be disproved (or proven). To this extent, Darwinism is nothing more than a religion and should be kept from our schools.

If anyone can show me a plausable theory on the origin of life, that can be duplicated in a lab, I will admit Darwinism is more plausable than ID.

All of you need to learn how to spell.

The whole thing revolves around the fact that scientists seem to feel the need to explain everything. Let me tell you something, the day that we know everything about everything is the day that this world keels over from a dying soul. All Darwinism is is another sort of a religion, or anti-religion depending on the way you look at it. Personally, I would like someone to explain to me how a universe appears magically out of nowhere without a God. You can't. Regardless, it is very important that people have something to believe in. If you believe monkeys gradually transformed into humans, that's fine with me - just don't try to impose your ideas upon me and I won't impose mine on you.

Doesn't the grammar police ever take a day off? What gives already, it's an online response, not a published novel.

Evolution is probably the most ridiculous and most underproved theory every constructed. So much of evolution is based on the idea that one type of "being" turned into another millions of years ago. Funny, but with all of the fossils that have been discovered, why have we never found a fossil record that shows one being turning into another? Why have their been ancient drawings found showing dinosaurs and humans coexisting? That is just the tip of the iceberg in my attempt to enlighten all of you idiot liberals. Your intolerance for Intelligent Design is simply an intolerance of religion and our countries religous beliefs. Funny, aren't all of you supposed to be the tolerant ones. Oh, I forgot, only tolerant to what you already believe.

"Evolution is probably the most ridiculous and most underproved theory every constructed. So much of evolution is based on the idea that one type of "being" turned into another millions of years ago. Funny, but with all of the fossils that have been discovered, why have we never found a fossil record that shows one being turning into another? Why have their been ancient drawings found showing dinosaurs and humans coexisting? That is just the tip of the iceberg in my attempt to enlighten all of you idiot liberals. Your intolerance for Intelligent Design is simply an intolerance of religion and our countries religous beliefs. Funny, aren't all of you supposed to be the tolerant ones. Oh, I forgot, only tolerant to what you already believe."

You're kidding me, right? You do realize they've found fossils of Neanderthal and Cro Magnon man, and man in between those two and humans, don't you? Oh wait, you idiot christian conservatives (who are among the poorest demographics in the country, I'd like to add) only listen to things that Christian Rock tells you.

"Evolution is probably the most ridiculous and most underproved theory..."

This poster should test the theory of gravity by jumping off a cliff.

Let his god sava him then!

Bwaaaha haha hahah

As a former professor in the Science Department of a mid-Michigan community college, I developed offered a course entitled "The Meaning of Evolution". Something very much like it should be taught in all high school science classes and as courses in higher education. Fully one half of the course was devoted to what evolution is Not; to dispelling all of the numerous harmful notions that come to comprise the average person's belief of what evolution is. These notions are part of popular culture and unfortunately are endlessly regenerated by a multitude of sins that could be easily avoided if one were aware of their inadvertent impact on intellectual comprehension. These are: careless wording in discussions, media articles and documentatry scripts including the massive misuse of many terms that must be given specific definition; use of the 'active voice' instead of the 'passive voice' in descriptions of the process (evolution is not a self-aware, directed process as the former implies); constant misuse of the term of "theory" confounding it with "speculation"; endless thoughtlessly egregious (and often grandious)scenarios offered as seeming fact in explanation of
the process and 'reason'(for)the evolution of a character; the failure to define "evolution" in its various past incarnations and present form; and finally, the excision of any other vestige of misunderstanding of basic concepts.

Only then can one begin to define the theory in terms of the history of the concept's development. And only after the latter is accomplished can one describe the content of the theory as it exists today. (Of Course there are 'gaps' in the "Darwinian Theory of
evolution.It's nearly two hundred years old and alot has been learned in the meantime!)

Since this can't be done effectively in a few paragraphs or pages and certainly without several hours of discussion, it's rarely attempted. Instead we often presume the student will pick up the 'right idea'-(i.e., throw out all the old popular culture-induced ideas) along the way. This almost never happens. As a result most of those who Have had instruction in the subject often don't themselves actually know what they are speaking of--or at least don't realize the misconceptions they're promulgating by sloppy use of language and ill-defined concepts.

Sound like a boring course? From the way this is written, I suspect so. But in practice as a series of round-table discussions it's quite lively and the only way I know of to help students discover what they thought they knew, but don't, about the concept.

A short version of it can be developed for both high school 'units' and college lectures and it should be required reading/training for all science journalists and documentary film script writers.

Popular culture is very deeply ingrained and its notions (often far older than even Darwin's Theory) are tenaciously held as a part of the way in which the average person understands their world.

I would add one provision to the proposed law (very well done by the way because it demolishes the possibility of attack as a matter of 'freedom of speech'): anyone misusing terminology, poorly phrasing statements and making grandiose, unsupportable claims about evolution in the popular media (or textbooks)for purposes of popular or formal education should be put in the stocks in the campus quad and tickled to death by creationists weilding dinosaur feathers.