so where should intelligent design be taught? religion has had thousands of years in the "conventional" view of things. "science" has been here for quite a while too. intellegent design, which in my mind raises some interesting points, fleshed out here; www.lloydpye.com needs to hold the course for a few years as a seperate position.
there are those who say that intelligent design is merely creationism is disguise but, in my mind, there is a distinction here. creationism encompasses big bangs, seven days of creating the universe, light, darkness, etc. whereas intelligent design is saying that man was engineered. the website linked above clarifies this far better than i can. it says the there is a distinction between micro and macro evolution the science doesn`t adress, it says that we don`t need a supernatural reason to explain human existance. it says that science has the tools right now to rationalise the fact that human dna is vastly different to any other species on the planet.
intelligent design, as long as it doesn`t gravitate to religious fundimentalism is a great way for students and people in general to ask critical questions of a scientific community the mumbles about big bangs, dark matter and missing links. they patronise us as if we can`t think for ourselves and challenge clearly falacious positions like humans evolving from monkies.
one fact; we have one less chromasome pair than monkeys. they have 24 pairs, we have 23.......
mutation that would cause a species to mutate at the chromasome level doesn`t ever create a new functional species. we all know what it creates.
if science can get by that then we have something to talk about.