The problem with theories that incorporate religious or supernatural components is that those don't fit with science as we currently understand it.

No, the problem with those theories is that they are not theories because they are not science. Religion is, by definition, outside of the realm of natural reality and thus, science. If god were ever discovered in a laboratory, he would have to be natural and not supernatural, by the very definitions of those words.

There isn't a shred of evidence to support the existence of a creator. The debate has very little to do with whether or not a creator exists. No one at this time can prove one way or the other, but the Theory of Evolution is backed by mountains of evidence & peer review while religion is backed by...an ancient book of questionable origin. There are many Atheists that would become religious if one could prove that their God existed & that they knew the mind of said God. It's not much different than when a Christian becomes an Atheist once he/she begins to research Evolution or various other facts.

It's not much different than when a Christian becomes an Atheist once he/she begins to research Evolution or various other facts.

Just to ensure that my current understanding was exactly what wikipedia proclaims, I did as you requested.

So, how did my simply worded sentence confuse you? Should I have thrown in some five dollar words?

Let me elaborate.

The scientific method, I believe, is an important process to teach. The logical and systematic approach is a very important learning objective.

Scientific theories I believe, while well founded and tested through the scientific method, remain theories. That is not meant to discredit them but to highlight the fact that there can exist different theories. In the case of evolution, the theoy is certainly the prevalent one. The problem with theories that incorporate religious or supernatural components is that those don't fit with science as we currently understand it.

I think the driving force here is not really the "religious right" (which is really just "religious" because that term denegrates the religious liberals that hold the same opinion) but more, I believe, the "consensus" of scientists to simply dismiss religious or supernatural premisis. Much of what we think we know on a whole range of topics is based on such limited experience that I think to off handedly dismiss things you simply don't believe is silly.

I understand that but the fact that science even excludes the possibility from the discussion further fuels the argument. In other words, when you have a science teacher outright dismiss other possibilities outside of their understanding that will fuel the type of conflict we have today. I might expand on this later.

We don't consider things to be true which have no evidence.

Teachers of science aren't outright dismissing creationism as a possibility; they don't teach it because there is no evidence for it.

Well, in the case of God being responsible for Creation, that really isn't just a "certain group's" religious belief. It is generally the belief probably held by the majority [...]

Give me a break. Even 1 in 5 Amercan atheists believe in a higher power, according to a recent poll.

I understand that but the fact that science even excludes the possibility from the discussion further fuels the argument.

That happens both ways, y'know.

Now I'm sure some condescending individual will draw parallels to the flat Earth, man made global warming

I would agree with you that a teacher shouldn't be dismissing the possibility of a creator to a classroom full of children. We simply don't know whether or not one exists. The subject of Creationism or ID should never be discussed in either a positive or negative tone in the classroom because it's not scientific.

Few Americans know much about Economics & Physics but I would argue that this country would be a far better place if they did.

There are a ton of careers where Evolutionary Biology is important. If we don't get children interested in important subjects early, they'll probably never become interested. The Fundamentalists recognize this fact, which is why they want Creationism & ID taught in school in the first place.

There isn't a shred of evidence to support the existence of a creator. The debate has very little to do with whether or not a creator exists. No one at this time can prove one way or the other, but the Theory of Evolution is backed by mountains of evidence & peer review while religion is backed by...an ancient book of questionable origin. There are many Atheists that would become religious if one could prove that their God existed & that they knew the mind of said God. It's not much different than when a Christian becomes an Atheist once he/she begins to research Evolution or various other facts.

To simply dismiss religious possibilities because they are not scientific

theories regarding the genesis of the planet and life can't be disproven.

The act never mentions ID... so you just assume that's what it's for?

But the bill doesn't even mention ID. You're all freaking out and blaming the 'religious right' with nothing to back it up.

In the end, democracy is about what the majority thinks, not what's actually correct.

Now I'm sure some condescending individual will draw parallels to the flat Earth, man made global warming, and other such things where a majority of popular opinion was definitely wrong

Be that as it may, I think a real problem is that teachers are teaching that their way is the "correct way" and dismissing other "theories" as "hogwash" (sorry for all the quotation marks). That is generally not going to be an issue. Most classes are never going to be very controversial but when you have a science teacher outright dismissing God, as was mentioned previously in this thread, you are bound to create problems with the masses.

Wuss, I'm not going to debate with you because I don't actually care. I'll just quote myself instead, because this is rather important.

There are mountains of evidence in the form of fossils that support Evolution.

Why is it a sin to be critical of evolution? In schools, shouldn't everything in science class be addressed critically?

Darwin wasn't the only contributor to the Evolutionary theory.

Teaching ID is arguing that the holes in Evolution are evidence for "design." This is not scientific, and has not been subject to the system of science. Do you realize that everything else you read about in a science book has been tested and retested for a great deal of time? ID is just a facade for Creation, which neither can be tested or even quantified. They're not science, they're philosophy.

Actually, a lot of stuff you read about in textbooks is obsolete and incorrect.

Shouldn't the "holes" be examined/discussed anyway?

That's interesting, because you personally aren't really informed enough to make that kind of assessment.

If the scientific community was comprised of a bunch of fundamentalists that were doing everything they could to prove creation right, they could have you just as convinced of ID as you are now of evolution.

one bird is hardly 'mountains of evidence' in the fossil record.

What's the difference between teaching ID and talking about critiques of evolution or things that evolution doesn't address? Saying that a higher power is responsible?

Shouldn't the "holes" be examined/discussed anyway? There is no valid reason to shield students from scientific criticisms about key parts of evolutionary or any other scientific theory.

What's the difference between teaching ID and talking about critiques of evolution or things that evolution doesn't address? Saying that a higher power is responsible?