"Intelligent design is currently not in the Louisiana state science standards and so could not be taught. But this allows scientific criticisms of Darwin's theory to be taught," said John West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.
"Scientific criticism?" Jesus and Einstein wept. When these people learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, then they can talk. From Suite101:
So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge.
Now, personally, I believe that God began all creation, and evolution is the method he has used to create mankind. But I don't make the mistake of thinking that's a "scientific theory." It's a religious belief, and while perfectly legitimate for discussion in a philosophy class, it has no place in a biology classroom discussion.
Besides which, Kitzmiller v Dover re-established that I.D. may not be taught in class:
Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because
intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its
creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Most distressing of all:
A nationwide survey conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 45 percent of U.S. adults did not think evolution was the best explanation for the origins of human life.Seems to me there was a time when the prevailing opinion was that the world was flat, as well. Good thing science isn't supposed to be ruled by opinion.