I dont think there is any problem with teaching intelligent design. A lot people confuse intelligent design with creationism. The two are polar opposites.

Somehow fitting. When you get out of your car/plane in Slowdeatha, the first thing you say is, "Oh, God!"

ID and creationism might be polar opposite but the magnet is still God as Creator/ID. Teach it in church if you wish, but teach science in public school.

Clarification. Do you have a problem with a course being taught on the Bible as a historical document or something that is of cultural significance (it is the best selling book in the world)? Put aside your distrust of the Bible-thumpers for one second before answering. Theological Tradition was one of the coolest classes I ever took.

People will argue that this isn't a problem because the course is being taught as an elective. That said, however, the coursebook is written by a Fundamentalist Christian organization and the book has an obvious slant to it. The underlying problem here is not whether or not this is a required course or who wrote the book. Rather, it's the fact that that school taxes are being collected and used to fund a course that teaches religion from a historical perspective. If the school were to have the course taught from a literature standpoint (the Bible as literature), there would be less of a problem. If the school were to offer the class as an elective paid for only by the parents of the students that took it, then there would be no problem.

Oh Wank,

Just go back to your pottymouthing, name calling ways.

When you try to sound substantive, it's just embarrasing.

Creationism and ID are "polar opposites"? In what way? Both are based on Christian conceptions, and both are made-up BS.

One said life was created one way, the other explains it a differnt way. Both are different. Are the polar opposites? Maybe be not....but differnt none the less.Anyway, dont spaz one me just because you hate chrsitians.

Thats one thing about you people on the bleeding edge. You mention god and suddently you turn from treehuggin hippies to hate spewing thundercunts.

The latter doesn't excatly apply to you Locutor.....but your defintely a prick.

Merry Christmas.

"This is an elective course," said Rives. "It's not like anybody's going to hold a gun to anybody's head to take it."

I see no problem with offering study of the Bible as an elective - regardless of how the idiot evangelicals want to interpret it. It's a shame that they chose it over the course with broader faiths, but i can see the itnerest in the fact that this course actually has the Bible as required reading. It is, as snrub said, the bestselling book of all time. Everyone should read it, if for no other reason than to know what they're all arguing about.
I find it boring and off-putting, but I've read it, too.

i'm having a hard time distinguishing wonk's pottymouthing, namecalling ways from yours, locutor.

Unless "Wank" is a typo.

mutt's got a point, though - if it were taught as strictly literature, it might be less an issue altogether.

I don't know what your education background is, Wonk (I have a sneaking suspicion you're a 16-year-old high school student), but I highly doubt you took a single biology class given your comments on this issue. You really ought to educate yourself on both sides before making any more public comments about ID/evolution.

I'm not sure how this class even got approved anyway since it's probably not on the TAAS.

God hates you.

Wonk, I've seen you make this comment several times now and I'm hoping your only playing around. If not, then your view of God is a little off. God wants people to think, to discuss, and to share ideas. After all, God made man in His image, according to the Bible. God also gave Man free will, so to think God would hate His creation because it thought, reasoned, and argued differing points of view is contradictory at best, and blasphemous at worst (as it limits God's powers). In fact, if God were capable of hate, the zealous false prophets who preached hatred in His name would probably be at the top of His shit list. Something to think about (if you actually do think before you post).

As long as we're on the First Amendment, no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise was made.

snrub: Public money was used. The way the decision should be applied is that students may assemble voluntarily, without resources provided by the district, during an elective time to study or practice religion. All this crap about principals banning prayer is a missapplication and should be challenged. The school can't sponsor, but students can do it on their own. ANYONE who took AP Calc in HS can clearly state that prayer is allowed in schools.

I believe in a loose form of ID (God as prime mover but that's about it), but therein lies my argument. My faith tells me it's true, but I can not prove it conclusively. Therefore, it is a belief NOT fact and so it's impossible to teach as science. It seems to me that these people are more interested in making others believe as they do.

I have no problem with religion. However, I DON'T want my tax dollars going to pay for the piety of a group of hypocrits who are eager only to show their 'faith' to other people. I find those people disgusting AND I believe in the same God. Can you imagine how an atheist must feel:)?