Slashdot Mirror
Louisiana Passes Intelligent Design Law
H0D_G writes "The US state of Louisiana has passed the 'Science Education Act,' a piece of legislation that could allow Intelligent design to be taught in schools. From the article: 'The act is designed to slip ID in "through the back door"'"
Gotta love how LA lawmakers wasted LA taxpayer money creating, discussing, and passing legislation that will be struck down entirely in a matter of months, having had no one actually follow the law during those brief months of effect.
Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
So, when are they going to give equal time to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Kevin Smith on Prince
You make fun of Christianity's aversion to homosexuality, but the fact of the matter is that the harsh restrictions on the lifestyles of Christians make the taboos such as homosexuality and miscegenation all the more attractive. Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty.
Christianity and religion as a whole encourages the polarization of actions into "good" and "evil" and by forcing the pendulum to the "good" side makes the "evil" side more attractive than an a-moral philosophy can do.
There's no need to be a "Bible-belt" politician - a simple politician will do.
It seems that in Louisiana the Bible thumpers have gained some pretty big influence, if the 94-3 and unanimous votes mean anything. A veto would have no chance to stand, so Jindal took the easy way out and signed the law.
However, he might have lost a lot in the process. By not challenging the majority, he just stands in the middle of the mainstream. If he had vetoed the law, he would have stood as a voice for reason. He might have lost the next election, but he's liable to lose it anyhow, since he seems to be indistinguishable from at least 94 other politicians.
are we so afraid that science will lose the fight?
Is it "afraid" to not want my children taught an out-and-out lie, which is precisely what creationism and its bastard offspring, ID, are?
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. (un)Intelligent design is pile of crap sugar coated to look like science. It is not a valid scientific hypothesis because it doesn't have an valid data or methodologies to back it up. I don't know what state or school you were taught in, but in most classes I have attended, the focus isn't on the theory but on how and why the conclusion was reached, it a sad day when politic have driven education to put the focus on the conclusion rather than how the conclusion was reached.
Why is the act called the Science Education act while no science at all is involved?
The problem isn't proving that evolution is true. The problem is that ID can't be proven false. It's like demanding Scientology be taught in schools because it can't be proven false even though most sane people know it's just bad science fiction.
Well, given how badly misreported this law has been, I'm not surprised that you misunderstood it.
All this law does is provide legal protection for teachers to tech "alternate views" to the Theory of Evolution. It is NOT exclusively restricted to ID teaching. This could, logically, also include FSM theory. So don't worry, be Happy! Teachers in LA can now ALSO tell children about the Noodly beginnings of humanity in addition to other creationist teachings.
Seriously, this really is much ado about nothing. It's just an anti-stupid lawsuit law, to protect teachers who simply ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that not everyone believes ToE is correct. That's it, nothing more, no matter what the militant Atheist sites and D-Kos may say.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
No, because the whole point of science is never knowing for sure. You can never stop investigating and experimenting, because there are always things you don't know that you don't know and you have to question everything.
Yes, you can have a significant body of evidence that supports a theory, which can reliably predict outcomes. Classical Newtonian Physics, for instance, works for most things you encounter in your daily life, but is hardly the last word on Physics. Hell, field theory and quantum mechanics pretty much undo it, at least at the microscopic level.
Similarly, Mendelin heredity more or less works, but is hardly the last word on genetics. Even since the discovery of DNA, we've learned all sorts of new things.
Evolution is an observable natural phenomena. Natural Selection seems to explain it, but there could be other things we don't know and so we have to search them out.
Hell, God *could* exist and *could* have intelligently designed the universe. It's highly unlikely, but not impossible. What *IS* certain however, is that the certainty with which ID/Creationist proponents cling to that crap belies any scientific credit that their approach has.
Certainty is the antithesis of science, at least in my view. I'm sure some PhD will come along and bitch slap me down now.
As soon as the ID crowd can provide proof of any sort to move their take on things from fairy tale category to testable theory, then they can begin teaching it in classrooms.
You're missing the point, ID is not science and shouldn't be taught in a science class. It's perfect for a class on religion or christianity, but don't even try to present it as some sort of equally plausible alternative to evolution.
When I was a kid in school I had classes on all the major religions, and their creation myths, including christianity. I've read the old testament in literature classes. I've had physics classes that taught about the Big Bang. And I've had biology classes that taught evolution.
Noone is saying that we shouldn't teach everything, but each thing has a place, and biology classes is not the place for ID.
I hear this excuse for ID all the time. "We need to teach both, for the children to have a well rounded education".
I'll meet them half way. Go ahead teach your ID in schools, For The Children. And because we care so much that the children receive both sides of the story, you start teaching evolution in Sunday School. After all, it's for the sake of the children.
While I agree with you, teaching philosophy in science class is not the way to achieve critical thinking.
ID is a philosophy, and not an alternative scientific theory. As such, I have no problem with it being taught - just with it being taught in science class.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Science education in this country is getting ridiculous. We go and try to teach scientific "facts" to kids before we actually teach critical thinking and scientific method. It's the NATURE of science that there are - or should be - no "sacred cows" - including evolution or ID or whatever. There is NO room for dogma in scientific thought, and we are seeing way too many people discount notions of the supernatural simply because it's supernatural. Science should be open to everything - including the unmeasurable and unexplainable.
True enough, but it's a shame that the ones who are going to lose out the most in all this are children, who've had nothing to do with the decision and don't really know any better.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
No one has ever claimed that Dawkins DOES have all the answers.
Also, it's very common knowledge that Science doesn't currently have all the answers. That's more or less the point.
However, we ARE afraid that Science 'will lose the fight', and with good reason; It's happened before, with all the Islamic countries.
http://www.chowk.com/articles/9555
Basically, they had high points of Science and Technology, but their rabid spiritualists tried to force every little thing to be expressed in terms of religion (Just like this bill is doing) until they became what they are today. They were once top in the world, and now they are firmly at the bottom.
It can happen to us too, and will happen unless we fight back.
Such extremes such as celibacy have forced even priests into the arms of pederasty.
What the hell? You think not being able to have sex with women makes people have sex with little boys? That's a whole new level of ridiculous.
They are allowing it to be taught on equal footing (I think). That would be similar to allowing an alternate teaching of gravity. Nobody has proven the fundamental reason gravity works, though it has been demonstrated that the effect has certain parameters and is highly repeatable. Evolution has similar backing. Other theories, such as the various stories of creation by Christians, Pastafarians, et alias, do not have the base of scientific review. It is not "science." It should be taught in the appropriate class - i.e. Religion.
If some people want to call parts of science class a sham, that's fine. Science has been shown to be wrong in some cases over time, such as the model of the atom, but science is specifically about updating as new discoveries are found. Don't start teaching religion in science class, or literature in mathematics class for that matter.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
That's the real problem. We need to teach critical thinking so that people can recognize the morons when they see them.
No sig today...
I don't even believe that it's any particular sect of Christianity. I know members of various denominations, and the majority of any seems to believe that ID is simply a rebranding of creationism, and by definition isn't science. (Although, most of the people I know are either employed, or related to those employed in the life sciences).
The one group that seems to be more highly associated with ID in my personal experience (for what it's worth) is Born Again Christians. My grandmother is a firm believer in ID as something that should be taught in schools along side science, but then again she's also emails me religious spam half a dozen times a week
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
So, should we also protect teachers who simply ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that not everyone believes the Earth is round?
A teacher's job is not to tell the children what some people believe, his job is to teach what is known to be the most accurate theory in existence.
As for teaching alternative views, I have nothing against that, as long as they are presented exactly as that: alternative. If a teacher presents the "ID" theory in class, it should be shown why ID is not a reasonable alternative to evolution. Children should be aware that ID exists, because they will find it mentioned outside of class, but they should be aware that a well-informed and intelligent person would have absolutely no doubt that evolution is the correct alternative.
Your broad brush that says it's cool to hate Christianity right now is incorrect. Some people that label themselves Christian give the concept a bad name.
In the US, the separation of church and state should be strong; the concept's been in the US Constitution as a principle from the Articles of Confederation. Once again, a legislature tries to impose dogmatic/orthodox beliefs on others. It's been happening as long as the constitution has been around, and it will be struck down like the rest of the attempts.
Louisiana now joins Tennessee, Kansas, Indiana, and other jurisdictions where the votes have been for legislated morality.
And so fie on your sense of hatred of Christians-- it's a small orthodox lunatic minority that gives Christianity a bad name. Fight them.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
And pray tell, what scientific alternative to Evolution is there? Name one scientific hypothesis or theory which can be used as a substitute for Evolution.
Contrary to your sniping at militant atheists*, this DOES allow the teaching of ID and other religious, not scientific, based precepts in a science curriculum.
Um, yeah. I dare you to find one teacher in Louisiana who, even as a joke, would teach anything about the FSM. I guarantee you that should any teacher be so bold to do so, calls for their head on a pike would immediately go out regardless of what you claim this law says.
Here's a question: why is it that one, and ONLY one, religious group wants their viewpoint shoved down everyone elses throat yet, when the mention of allowing children being exposed to other religious or cultural viewpoints these same people have apoplectic seizures because somehow that could "contaminate" the children. If it's acceptable to shove your views down my kids throat, why can't I do the same to yours? After all, if you're just trying to provide equal opportunity to show different points of views, then you shouldn't have a problem with other people having their say.
*I laugh every time this phrase is used because a large portion of the people who don't want ID to be taught in school come identify themselves as one of the four major religious groups.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Public school teachers have no right to teach "alternate views" based on mythology and superstition. If a chemistry teacher starts teaching alchemy, they should be fired for incompetence. Same goes for a science teacher trying to teach Intelligent Design.
Here
Best Slashdot Co
So what? You said it yourself. It allows teachers to teach 'alternate views' of the Theory of Evolution. Such as that it's wrong, and they'd better read their Bibles. The protection from lawsuits is just a happy side-effect.
If you think that this will ever be used to teach anything other than creationism, then you are:
1) Hopelessly Naive.
2) Someone who has never been to Louisiana.
This law will ensure that no one from Louisiana will ever receive a real education.
I think spending your whole life being taught sex is dirty and evil, and dedicating yourself to spreading that myth, causes the sexual urges that never stop coming to express themselves in strange and awful ways. Like fucking kids.
I find it very, very frustrating when the state legislature decides the particulars of what I should teach in the classroom. This bill does not specifically force me, a LA teacher, to teach ID, or the mythical status of global warming, but it does represent law makers meddling in an area they are not experts.
This would be like the legislature directing doctors on the proper methods of suturing a wound, or instructing how to treat a form of cancer. Doctors wouldn't stand for that for more than a second because they are highly trained professionals that know how to do their job. Teachers are also highly trained professionals that know how to do their job without the state meddling directly in the goings on of the classroom.
The new law does not force teachers to teach ID, only makes it acceptable to teach ID as science. This bothers me. This bothers me almost more than I can stand. ID is NOT science. Science is a process of developing TESTABLE theories that can checked and re-checked for error. Until someone creates a litmus test for God, ID is completely unprovable. One might also argue that there is a giant invisible, undetectable yet all powerful beetle that pushes the earth around the sun. If we can't create a test that supports a theory, it's NOT a theory (nor is it science), it's just a nice story.
As a science teacher, my job is to teach science. I teach how to do science, not just words and definitions. I can't even begin to teach ID as science because it is not testable. I teach science as a method of answering questions through experiment and analysis of result. There is no way to do this reliably or reproducibly with ID because God doesn't settle down into a test tube very well.
Let's keep ID where it belongs, in religion classes, not in the science lab. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science answers questions about the knowable and testable. If it doesn't fit into that category, then it probably fits into religion or philosophy. It is very silly to try and use science to influence religion and even sillier to try and use religion to do science.
This one's tricky. You have to use imaginary numbers, like eleventeen... --Hobbes
Normally, I don't feed trolls, but here goes just once...
Proofs exists only in the abstract world of mathematics and logic. In the real world there is no such thing as a proof... only very, very compelling evidence, and theories that spot-on predict experimental outcomes. And of course, evolution being an intractable algorithmic process, you by definition can not predict the exact outcome of any evolution. But again, if you have ever bothered reading anything on evolution, you would have known that Darwin and evolution is not about the "why" or the "where to" question. Only about the how...
Complexity is a measure of our ignorance...
What I find weird about these first few comments is that Catholics have nothing to do with intelligent design. It's a born-again thing, and they utterly hate Catholics.
In order to be a legitimate scientific theory you have to be able to create tests that prove a theory as false or inaccurate - not tests that establish the theory as fact.
Once you beat the hell out of a theory from many different angles over a period of time, AND you can begin to accurately predict the outcome of your tests before you execute them, you get CREDIBILITY. It still isn't a FACT. In fact, it's still referred to as a theory by scientists.
The only facts are the results of your TEST.
Now, develop one falsifiable test on a theory of life that has ALL of its function wrapped up in the abilities of an Omnipotent, Omnicient, Omnipresent entity that does not present itself but only lets itself be known to those who demonstrate "faith"?
Now tell me why an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent entity needs a fucking plan? A plan gets you from state A to state B while minimizing risk and maximizing efficiencies. What part of that is needed by something that can do DO ANYTHING, KNOWS EVERYTHING, AND IS EVERYWHERE AND WHEN?
I am so sick of people spouting off "God's plan" like they have any fucking clue as to the mindset of a being as powerful as a true god. I'm no Atheist, I believe in a god, but not this anthropomorphic piece of social control zealots seem to know so well.
Science and god don't contradict one another, Science and RELIGION do. Its the one thing that religious nuts know and hate. You don't want the truth, you want your story to BE the truth.
ANY argument based on an idea that only becomes credible if you choose to accept DOGMA as truth lacks any understanding of how ANYTHING works. This becomes even more apparent when that DOGMA is focused on humans telling other humans what an OMNIPOTENT, OMNICIENT, and OMNIPRESENT beings's motivations are.
You lack the fundamental ability to even comprehend how such an existence would manifest itself, much less be able to map its quantity and depth of perception to your measly five senses (which happen to be temporally and locally bound).
And before you start ranting on how can I know a god with all this being true, let me say I can't. What I can do is immediately tell anyone who tells me that they know what God wants, or what God was thinking, that they can go fuck themselves.
how do you know it's a lie?
A pink giraffe was living in my back yard last week. Prove me wrong.
have you proven creationism to be a lie and not told anyone?
Creationism can't be proven wrong, which is why it isn't science.
while you're at it you might as well tell everyone how you proved evolution as fact while the rest of the world is still trying...
Ummm, evolution (as a process) is proven. There is no debate about this whatsoever. There is a tiny, vocal crowd disagreeing with that, but you'll find that with anything. Evolution (as the theory explaining the observed facts) can't be proven because nothing in science can be proven - that's not how it works.
By the way, I'm a conservative Christian.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Actually, the scientific world doesn't debate whether evolution is a fact or not. They debate the finer points. How fast did these mutations occur? What are the main trigger mechanisms? That sort of thing. But the basic "species change over time giving rise to new species" is as close to scientific fact as you can get. Some creationists get hung up on the word "theory." In science, virtually everything is a theory, not matter how well proven it is. There is a mountain of evidence that evolution happened (and is still happening). Creationism is a nice story, and if you want to believe that God is the one behind the curtains making it all work, go right ahead. But God has no place in a science class, just like science has no place dictating what (if any) prayers you say.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
And you've assigned the blame to a small sect in the Roman catholic church, when there's small sects in nearly all religious groups that don't practice what they preach.
I'm sure I'll be modded flamebait or troll, but this is a serious question. I really want to know.
Is there any sect of Christianity that practices what it preaches?
For example, do the old testament rules apply or not? When it suits their agenda, the old testament is the unerring word of god. When they want a ham sandwich, the old laws don't apply any more; they've been superseded by the new testament.
All this law does is provide legal protection for teachers to tech "alternate views" to the Theory of Evolution. It is NOT exclusively restricted to ID teaching. This could, logically, also include FSM theory. So don't worry, be Happy! Teachers in LA can now ALSO tell children about the Noodly beginnings of humanity in addition to other creationist teachings.
That's the words. Every law consists of two parts: The words and the interpretations. Judges do and will ask what the intention of the law was, and I think GP as well as almost everyone else here correctly assumed the same thing that judge will end up with.
But if you're a teacher in that area, why don't you test it out? Teach the FSM creation theory. No, wait, that wouldn't be taken seriously, and religiots are bad at humour - teach the islamic creation theory, and omit the christian one. Wanna bet on the number of lawsuits that'll hit you before you're even through?
Seriously, this really is much ado about nothing. It's just an anti-stupid lawsuit law, to protect teachers who simply ACKNOWLEDGE the fact that not everyone believes ToE is correct. That's it, nothing more, no matter what the militant Atheist sites and D-Kos may say.
Name one acknowledged evolutionary scientist who today considers the theory of evolution to be incorrect. Not minor detail nitpicking, an actual scientist in this discipline who thinks the whole theory is bonkers and should be replaced with something else entirely. Just one and I'll shut up.
The fact of the matter is that Darwin is right up there with Newton and Einstein. There is as much doubt in evolution as there is in relativity. Both have been tested extensively and passed - again, and again, and again.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Note that the priesthood is not the only mechanism available for such denial: being a mega-preacher or a republican politician with a 'family values' platform are also high-profile examples.
A-Bomb
Wow, troll? Is there really someone who missed the whole Catholic priest scandal?
To mods: I wasn't implying that all Catholic priests are pedophiles... sheesh!
It was a good question to pose. We naturally assume the priesthood to be of good intention.. if we never question the priesthood, it is, as you posited, a perfect place for pedophiles to infiltrate. Much akin to the idea of the creation of the world.. if we don't seriously question the biblical idea, it leaves the door open for the wrong idea to be implanted by fools posing as religious authorities.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
I wonder about this too. Homosexuality is an abomination, and so are shell fish. So, why is it that shell fish are ok now, but homosexuality is not? You'd think an abomination is an abomination, right?
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
So since my wife and I aren't going to have any children - we're icky?
Why don't the IDers slip in a different spin:
./big-bang ...
~/god# make
~/god#
** universe created
** planet Earth instantiated
** animal life evolving
** humans emerging
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Let's keep ID where it belongs, in religion classes, not in the science lab. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Science answers questions about the knowable and testable. If it doesn't fit into that category, then it probably fits into religion or philosophy. It is very silly to try and use science to influence religion and even sillier to try and use religion to do science.
Ugh - the NOMA argument. Listen: there are no questions "off limits" to science. Could love be chemicals? Could souls exist as energy clouds? If god exists what is he thinking? All of these fall in the realm of science if they can be observed. If they can't be observed now, that doesn't mean they automagically become the domain of religion - they just can't be tested by science yet. Even ethics can be broken down in a more scientific way (anthropologically and evolutionarily, it is statistically in our nature not to kill people who don't pose a threat... knowing that, what ethics can we build from it? How can we reliably assess and define threats to expand our consciousness to the possibility that it's never right to kill? etc.)
Point being - religion only matters if you want to believe in it. Beyond that, it's science all the way down.
http://www.coderoshi.com/
Except the Catholic Church doesn't consider sex dirty or evil. Certain sexual practices, and who you do it with might be evil, but sex as practiced between a married man and woman is not evil, but sacred.
The fact of the matter is that some priests are sick individuals who are previously inclined to this sort of action, and choose to become priests because not getting married isn't a sacrifice to them, and this inclination wasn't discovered during their formation (training).
It's your mythos, and I don't want my children getting your mythos passed off as fact. Freedom also means freedom from mythos-expostulating nutcases, and that includes all of the proselyters, evangelists, and other teachers of mythos. I get to choose what my children learn; it is my duty, responsibility, and gift, not yours, or other religious peoples.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
if we don't seriously question the biblical idea, it leaves the door open for the wrong idea to be implanted by fools posing as religious authorities.
Yeah, but thankfully we know that would never happen....
This guy's the limit!
Without going into a semantics discussion about how you manipulated to quote into something a fair bit different, you're even then only almost right.
You're only almost right, and not completely so, because you're missing a couple of fundamental issues. For one, something being scientific doesn't entail it being accurate, or even true. Galileo's heliocentric model was scientific in nature, as it was susceptible to experimentation, but was ultimately inaccurate when compared to the (unscientific) orbs model of the time, only to be superseded by Kepler's as the leading heliocentric model. Darwinism was inaccurate in some aspects, but was susceptible to refutation through observation, in proper scientific fashion. Those observations led to refinements, rather than refusal by the scientific community as a whole, indicating that it was a pretty good starting point.
Hell, in this sense, even ID can be seen as scientific, insofar as you make a clear statement that God created life as it is, and that living creatures are unchanging (roughly speaking, I'm sure you can phrase it in a much better way). This statement is perfectly reasonable as science, insofar as I can experiment, and determine that today's creatures are different from creatures from 1 million years ago, or that today's creatures are changing, and both observations would refute it in a perfectly scientific manner. The problems begin when ID "scholars" start "rectifying" and dodging and trying to evade contradictory observations.
Secondly, not actually having made observations doesn't mean a (presumably scientific) theory doesn't set the framework for those observations to be made. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics both set forth results that were unverifiable with what was the state of the art at the time they were originally conceived. Even today, more than a century past the Annus Mirabilis, we keep coming up with novel observations regarding relativity. Yet the 4 articles Einstein published at the time were considered extraordinary (and most definitely scientific).
First, I highly recommend you read "Finding Darwin's God" by Dr. Ken Miller for an interesting treatise on the interplay between the realms of science and faith.
But more than that I recommend that rather than shoehorning the idea of spiritual faith into an idea of science you accept that for most people faith has little to do with making a metaphorical reference to natural phenomenon. It may turn out that you're precisely correct - that the idea of 'God' is best equated to the idea of the 'Universe as a whole'.
It may be - and probably is - that spiritual faith has little to do with 'using scientific tools' at all. It doesn't have to do with equations or with rigorous processes. Indeed, if you compare the modern conception of science to Buddhism's Noble Eight-fold Path, it fits pretty well into step five; begging the question of what the others are, or are for?
Traditionally the answer to that has been a very personal one. But I encourage you to recognize that while you can say that science is a way of examining God, this is not true for all people - that spirituality has little to do with the explanation of the material experience. Until there is that general acceptance there will be a great deal to fight about.
[Ego]out
Because it's not true. Most of those who use the term use it to mean a man with a beard who wears a white dress, lives in the sky, and can do magic.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
ID challenges evolution as much as astrology challenges astrophysics. Just because thinking of something in a very shallow way ("Hey, the Flood must of produced a lot of moving water, so that's how the Grand Canyon was made.") doesn't mean there is any validity to it. I've read every document I could get my hands on to see what ID can bring to the table but I see absolutely no verified predictions made by it, nor do I see explanation for the facts that are discovered about the world with microscopes, telescopes and the power of modern day science. People who believe in ID are just lazy thinkers. There I said it. Sorry for being such a dick about it. Spend 15 minutes looking at the evidence for things like the Big Bang and evolution and it's conclusive. Are there better theories out there? Sure. But ID isn't one of them. Also, expecting a class room of students to be able to debate such things shows how ridiculous the ID crowd is. I can't think of one Nobel prize winner who had to force his theory to be taught in schools so it could be excepted. They *ALL* had to go through the process of convincing the (very skeptical) scientists that the evidence proved them right.
ID is not a theory. Please stop perverting that word. A "theory" is a scientific term for a model that is backed by evidence, has not been rejected by evidence, and is falsifiable.
/rant.
ID is NOT backed by evidence and is NOT falsifiable, thus it is NOT a theory. It is a belief. Evolution can be proved wrong. ID cannot be.
Of course, nothing in science is ever proven correct either, we just teach the best model we have and work from there. If someone discovers a better model, the current one gets replaced. Keep ID where it belongs: in a comparative religion or philosophy course. It is not science.
ID has no place in any science curriculum. It has just as much place as Last Thursdayism or FSMism.
Back to the question of ID, I think schools should offer both teachings. Neither are provable as correct or incorrect, they are both theories, but the students should be allowed to decide what they believe in and what makes sense to them.
You can't teach ID as science, because it is not science. If you'll teach it, teach it in theology along with the other creation myths, where it belongs.
Was it an "entirely different species" or was it just an adaptation? Could you cross breed this "new" version of citrate metabolizing E. Coli with the original strain? Is so, then it's not really a new species, just the same with a new ability.
Ah, the meaningless macro/micro distinction.
Okay, look, it's like this. You believe, due to the evidence, that evolution can cause adaptations and new abilities in a species, and pretty substantial ones at that.
Now (and assume a sexually reproducing species here, it makes it easier to make the distinction), imagine you separate a species into two geographically separate populations. Each would then undergo its own random development of abilities and adaptations, just as you believe the unified population would. Now, is there any reason to believe that one of these adaptations couldn't impact the reproductive cycle (everything from a change in how fertilization occurs to an alteration in number of chromosomes), such that were you to bring the two geographically separate populations together, they would be physically incapable of producing viable offspring?
At that point, they are different species, and as they continue undergoing adaptations, the differences between them would increase to arbitrary levels. What was once the same type of organism is now two different types, neither completely resembling the original.
There's no difference between micro and macro evolution. None. If you believe a bacteria can evolve to metabolize a completely different food source than it used to, then there is no reason at all not to believe that an ancient ape could have evolved into separate populations of chimpanzee, orangutan, and homo sapien.
Also, given 20+ years and 44,000 generations to develop the ability to metabolize citrate, how long does it take to evolve into a platypus?
Gee, I dunno, around 500 million years give or take? I mean I have no idea exactly when platypi evolved, that's just how long it was from the start of the Paleozoic to Cenozoic era. I really don't get why the jump is so difficult. Small changes happen fast, big ones take time. Where, anywhere, is anything to suggest that big changes aren't possible?
The enemies of Democracy are
I just feel, and this is from my limited understand of evolution and Darwinism, that evolution isn't truly science either.
There is a VERY STRONG correlation between your "limited understand of evolution" and why you believe "evolution isn't truly science".
It is kinda like a person who cannot do simple arithmatic telling mathmaticians "math really doesn't work"...