I have seen it said that schoold need to teach the alternate?

Question

theory to evolution. What would that be?

sorry, *schools*, poor typer!

Mark, well said, but what predictions does the "theory" of ID make?

Thanks for the add, mark. What I mean by predictions is just that. I understand some of the reasons people lean towards ID, but in order for it to qualify as a scientific theory (which it should be in order to be taught in a science class) the idea needs to make predictions that, if found to be false, would mean the theory is false. Without predictions, ID is simply an idea and is not scientific theory. With evolution, the precambrian rabbit is a perfect example.

Answer 1

The criteria used by schools in biology, chemsitry, phsyics --the sciences should be to teach the scientific method. Any theory which allows reproducible observations by unbiased observers would be fine with me.

Answer 2

The alternate theory is intelligent design. For some reason this really angers evolutionists although many of them have never taken the time to look at the scientific, not biblical, reasons why the universe and the complexity of nature points towards at least the possibility of a Creator (whomever you may believe that to be). We have to remember, evolution is just a theory and not a law. Therefore, when it is taught, the proofs for and against it should be presented. If there are holes in the theory, and there are plenty, then why shouldn't an alternative be offered?

ADDED: Thanks, Nick. I am not sure exactly what you mean by "predictions." To me the point is that intelligent design is not just a "religious" issue that many seem to imply. There are many scientific evidences that seem to lean more towards intelligence being involved intead of randomness and meaningless natural selection. For example, genetic limits - - If intelligent scientists cannot break genetic barriers, why should we expect non-intelligent natural selection to do so? Also, there is irreducible complexity and the fact that transitional forms cannot survive during the slow trial and error, Darwinian transitions. Finally, even the fossil record seems to show that species appeared suddenly, fully functioning and formed. All of these seem to point to some type of instantaneous creation. None of the things I have mentioned comes from the Bible or any other religious document.

Answer 3

There is none. Evolution is too well demonstrated. There are a few details to hammer out, but natural selection and genetic change are too well established to disappear, although they may be superseded just as Newtonian mechanics has been shown to break down under extreme conditions where Relativity describes processes with more accuracy. No such theory yet exists for evolution.

Answer 4

In Britan, the Theory of Evolution is taught everywhere, I've heard it's not so in America.

Creationism is more suited to a Religious Stuides lesson than a Science lesson, as it ISN'T SCIENCE.

Answer 5

There is not an alternative scientific theory.


There is just a crackpot rebranding of Christian creationism that some fools claim is scientific. It was shown to be a sham at the Dover PA school board trial.

Answer 6

There can be an infinite number of theories to describe life. One of my favorites would be that man attained consciousness and "thought" himself and his world into existence.
Now the way a creationists thinks it is your burden to disprove this statement.

Answer 7

Its a book from the children's section of the library called "God and me"

Answer 8

"MAGIC MAN DIDIT!"