Intelligent Design or just propoganda?

ok, so in America there's such a thing as "Intelligent Design" which challenges the views of Darwinism in a seemingly scientific context. But it's only really been tried to and successfully succeeded momentarily in being adopted by school districts in Dover Pennsylvania, and has gone through the board of education in Topeka Kansas as the hearing for it there had scientists boycotting the trial for its acceptance in the schools cause they felt the courtroom was rigged for it to go through anyways(bad decision on their part I think personally.) The basic rundown is that in Intelligent Design because humans are so complex, there must be some unknown, architect responsible(personally all that screams out to me is creationism.) However the theory is also supported by those who find opposition to the currently popular Darwin theory of Evolution intrigueing and those who well, don't belive in evolution. The only problem it's running into is the fact that it is basicly creationism put in more scientific terms and its merely a theory based on faith, no evidence to prove its validity to science thus making it widely pointless in sceince classes all over america. This issue is dividing the scientists and teachers of all throughout America.
sources for better understanding of the topic:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4248679.stm
http://www.msnbc.m**.com/id/*******7/
http://www.msnbc.m**.com/id/9967813//
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/04/weekinreview/04good.html
-m s n
-m s n
-10 54 53 87(due to retardation of this f@x*$%w site i had to space the numbers)

my question is, do you think that it belongs in the science class? Why?
what do you think of it as a general fitting into science?

perhaps not a coarse of study , but perhaps as part of class discussion .

It's creationism with a new paint job and tricked-out headlights. That's all it is, and all the mention it deserves. But that's just my stubborn personal feeling about it. It probably merits mention and discussion, right next to spontaneous generation, phlogesteron and alchemy.

lol totally agree with you there xander, but personally that's why i don't think it belongs in science class.

Intelligent Design is nothing more than a fraud. Some people (such as 3rd Eye, above) regard it as "basically creationism put in more scientific terms and its merely a theory based on faith" - but even this is wrong. IT is put in no scientific terms whatsoever and IT is not a scientific theory.

I was also going to add some controversial stuff about mr God behaving like a 'cowboy' builder, just to rattle the creationists - but then I remembered this isn't the Religion Forum.

that's just what I got from the articles, science was never my strong suit, if i researched it more I'd probably change my position but as it stands I don't have the attention span to do such a thing.

To me it seems to be an attempt at a link between the incredible order and balance in our universe that has been discovered and a higher power. How could this all exist without a higher power type thing, but it doesn't belong in a science class since it is so similar to creationism (a side note). I wasn't sure if it was trying to disprove evolution (that would be disheartening), it seemed, to me, to be the fact that evolution occured also implies a higher power setting things in motion.

I am not sure what to think of Intelligent Design in a classroom setting. It can be, depending on whose explaining it, a connection between faith and science. Somewhat of a compromise between creationism and evolution.

I actually do not believe in linear human development nor a lot of current scientific views for things. Nor do I believe in creationism. My only support for Intelligent Design is based on the theory of the Big Bang (although alternative scientific creation theories can be substituted.) Energy and Matter had to come from somewhere. And the concept that inorganic matter just happened to become organic is more then slightly outrageous; otherwise, maybe the old spontaneous generation theories need to be dusted off.

Perhaps science class needs to teach scientific principles and the concept that science should be challenge. If nothing else, I am a firm believer in teaching children how to think for themselves.

xander. please tell me the difference between spontaneous generation and evolution?

What i've never really 'got' about intelligent design is the concept that life creating itself through a series of random events is too unlikely to happen on its own- but an even more complex event- the creation of a being great enough to alter or guide life through billions of years and through unknown, unseen, and inconceivable methods- a being who without a doubt would be a million times more complete than single celled organisms- also created itslf.

To me, its kinda like if I were to say that it was impossible for a Pizza to create itself, because the creation of Pizza is complex- but its perfectly logical that the Pizzaman created himself, and the Pizza. If one complex object is inconceivable, then why is an even more complex being more conceivable?