1) I believe we have lost our edge - our children are coming to the university less prepared to take on the challenges of college level study. Our feel good system has lost sight of the basics READING, WRITING, and MATHEMATICS these are the essentials of all other areas of study. I attended a Catholic school, nuns and all, and I learned. We had at least 1 hour a day of each of the basics and if we were not doing well enough we did more, all other subjects were secondary. This started in the first grade and continued for all eight years. By the way we had 35 to 40 children in each grade and just one nun no aides or assistants, but we had discipline. My grandson is in eighth grade and from what I see he is at least 2 years behind where we were when I was in school.

2) No

3) What a joke

4) That we better get our act together and turn things around or our grandchildren may find the earth unlivable.

I sort of agree with Don on #4 -- but with a twist: the planet *will* change, but we will "evolve" to live on it.  It has happened before!

alan,

how do you know that all ID is not what you would consider "solid" biology? you should really let the readers know that not all IDers are uber-religious creationists. Some of them are even agnostic. Subscribing to the theory of intelligent design does not necessitate a belief in god (or a god) nor would it necessitate a belief in a personal god. most of the people posting were under the impression that ID was creationism all dressed up in pseudo-science. and you definitely mis-represented it as such. why the hate for scientists who are doing science. they see major holes in the theory of evolution and through rational thought concerning things such as irreducible complexity, formulate a new hypothesis that they believe better fits the evidence.

also, alan, let's be honest. any theory or hypothesis concerning the origins of man are going to be built upon presuppositions in one's own worldview. both ID and darwinian evolution. if we build a theory of evolution from evidence alone, rather than presuppositions, we find that only microevolution (better known as adaptation) takes place. darwin's finches reached a certain point in the length and shape of their beaks and then regressed back to an equilibrium. this never is taken into account by darwinian evolutionists. why?

you also missed the main point of Mr. Stein's documentary. the main point was that modern science seems to cling to evolution as if it were their god or religion and defend it blindly rather than taking an honest look at the facts and evidence. the talk concerning the holes in the fossil record is that of a hopeful optimism that those holes will be filled. we've been waiting for those holes (i.e. missing links) to be filled since Darwin himself said that those missing links would once and for all prove his theory. and still we have no substatial results. instead the fossil record is rife with species seeming to appear suddenly (i.e. the pre-cambrian explosion). show me the conclusive proof for macroevolution, and maybe i will believe it, but until it is conclusively proven, give me other theories which better fit the evidence we have, which is what science is all about. Mr. Stein was only trying to re-open the dialogue because darwinian evolution has failed to produce it's results as well as failed to hold open and fair dialogue which examines all the likelihoods/possibilities which exist in the major theories of the origin of our species.

I wanna see the totals for this flick...does this blog, and others like it, help or hurt the film's receipts?
Are Creationists allowed to watch movies?
ID Folks must...if they're intelligent films...not just movies.
It's a joke...Stein is a satirist...mostly of himself...who gives a rat's patooty about it?
Only those who choose to make it into some culturally iconic landmark.
There must be something better to do...get the Visine ready...

In the course of this debate ID proponents try to use an argument of scientific progress. I would first like to point out that this is exactly what Darwin's theory provided, scientific progress away from an ID based hypothesis to a causal one. The reason this is discussed today is because of its SUCCESS, not because of some devious plot of the scientists. Remember in Darwin's time almost all scientist where strong believers in ID (or creationism) and this theory was the one that was the outsider.

Second, the reason that ID should never be lumped into a talk of science or scientific curriculum is because it departs from what is fundamental to science, causality and reproducibility. ID is neither causal nor reproducible, and is thus left to philosophers and theologians to discuss its academic merits; not scientists.

You often hear references to 'randomness' and 'probabilities' when ID proponents try to argue against conventional science. It is important to keep in mind that both in genetics and quantum physics these probabilities are still causal and reproducible. ID proponents would like to point out the 'highly improbability' of the given outcomes as evidence for their theory, though their theory does not provide a scientific analysis of its merit nor its errors or uncertainties. It is instead a blanket statement that limits the understanding of the complex systems. In the end, these people and unfortunately the swaths of uninformed followers (particularly on this continent) are the ones who lose out as the rest of the world continues to understand these systems and use that understanding for technological breakthroughs.

In the end, science is the pursuit of understanding. All scientists know (or at least should) that they will never obtain a complete understanding, which is why many scientists are able to easily accommodate spirituality into their lives. It doesn't matter how much you know, there is always room for meaning and moral guidance in your life. I wish the ID people would recognize this and accept science and reconcile it with their worldview, rather than trying to corrupt science to fit their worldview. Science is systematic, causal and reproducible. Faith and spirituality are not. That is why the two should never be intertwined.

I can't help but notice how much the average person DOESN"T know about science!  I guess we have to thank the public school system for this.  Imagine science done according to the conscious of the people, I guess the Earth would still be the center of the Universe.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):