BigJim

<a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2062009" target="_blank">http://slate.msn.com/?id=2062009</a>

hezekiah jones

Yeah, decent article. It's nice to see this so-called debate starting to hit the "mainstream."

Speaking of good stuff hitting the "mainstream," there is an excellent cover story in the March issue of Harper's called, "False Testament: Archaeology Refutes the Bible's Claim to History." It's not online though.

Dr Rick

Check-out the feedback <a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=3936&t=framegame" target="_blank">dicussion</a> for a reality check on how far we still have to go in educating the American public.

IvanK

I recall reading the account of some experiment meant to test ID where a "critical" protein had been knocked out of some cell. Surprise, surprise, the cell soon developed a different way of performing the "critical" function. Behe, the ID high priest, had responded noting some quibbles with the experimental design. But most importantly he claimed that, if one knocked out a protein from a cell and the cell then developed a different way of functioning, all it proved was that the protein involved was not a product of ID. Only protiens for which the cell can't develop a new response can be products of ID. In other words, any experiment that seems to disprove my theory wouldn't actually disprove it because if the experiment was successful it wouldn't have been a true test of the theory in the first place. And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

ID is not science, it is philosophy. It should be taught in religion class, not science class.

That being said, I see no reason why an individual needs to believe in Darwinian or post-Darwinian evolution in order to be a peaceful, productive citizen of a republic. So as far as public education goes I see no need to confuse the creationist shoe salesperson with the facts as long as he or she is a peaceful, productive shoe salesperson.