Intelligent design teaches that there is some sort of mystical creator/intelligent force that magically willed itself into creation and had created everything in the universe, and that is nothing more than disguised religious beliefs masquerading as truth. The scientific theory of evolution has been observed to be truth, it is only absurd to those who in reality know nothing about it. Transitional species/fossils have been observed. Evolution has nothing to do with marxist communism and in fact evolution and communism clash, as the former teaches natural selection while the latter tries to convince people that everyone is and should be equal, which is far from true. Religion/creationism/intelligent design serve one purpose, to brainwash people into accepting to be subservient to an invisible entity, nothing more nothing less, and communism's goal is the same thing to make everyone subservient and in this case to the government. Evolution teaches a natural view on things in our world, so evolution and communism never could be friends.

@SpikeTalon Marxism relies on evolution to evolve a new man.

Natural selection is not a mechanism for evolution. Natural selection destroys genetic information, it can't create new code. Codes need a code maker.

The complexity of the cell is beyond human comprehension. There is no simple cell or evidence that there ever was one.

God didn't magically will Himself into creation. He wasn't created. He always was. Always will be. God exists outside of time, which he created as well.

@Marcoullier A code maker needs a code maker as well, and on and on that goes. Nothing never was "always was" If god exists outside of time, that means he doesn't exist in this time and never existed at all, god is a manifestation of one's ego.

Natural selection is a by-product of evolution, evolution is what it is and cannot be compared to a political system like communism.

@SpikeTalon Evolution is what it is but God isn't what He is? There is no evidence for Darwinian evolution, yet unlimited evidence for God. What is life? How did it evolve? Life cannot be defined by science. We can list characteristics of life but science cannot define life because it can't be measured by science. There is no evidence of a first life form. We are supposed to believe chemicals just happened to make a code that allows for metabolism AND reproduction.

@Marcoullier No, what you meant to say is there is strong evidence for evolution and none for the existence of any deity. You do realize that if the existence of god could be determined beyond a doubt, people still wouldn't be arguing the issue. God isn't what he is because god exists only in the human brain, in other words made up by man.

Life is certainly defined, and here is the definition- the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

No evidence of a first life form? Glad you said that, and in doing so you just debunked the creation story in the book of Genesis. That aside though, there is evidence of prehistoric life forms in the fossil record. That "code" you speak of in regards to metabolism and reproduction contains some serious flaws, which is precisely the sort of thing one would expect to see in a world that has no intelligent designer.

@SpikeTalon you described characteristics of life. What is life?

My point was there never could be a first simple cell.

I know God exists through reason and revelation.

@Marcoullier Those characteristics did describe life, and from there on life is what we make it. Who said life couldn't have started from a simple single cell? Reason and revelation do not mix, as the former constitutes reality, and the latter is mere opinion.

@SpikeTalon no simple cell was ever observed. The cell has irreducible complexity.

@Marcoullier Simple cells have been observed...
[blogs.sciencemag.org]

Lastly, AronRa had a series of YouTube videos that debunked creationism and the very flawed theory of irreducible complexity-

@Marcoullier As a bonus, here's a quick thought on a disease called Type 1 Diabetes. In individuals who have Type 1 Diabetes, the body's immune system attacks the cells in the pancreas that produce the hormone insulin, which insulin is required in order to convert food into glucose which in turn is used to fuel the body. Without insulin, no energy source could be brought to the body's cells, and prior to the invention of synthetic insulins anyone with that disease died. So much for intelligent design, the body's own immune system goes haywire for largely unknown reasons and attacks an organ, truly doesn't get much more cockamamie than that. However, a disease like T1D is precisely the kind of thing we'd expect to see in a world that has no intelligent designer.

@SpikeTalon apparently you haven't heard of the second law of thermodynamics.

@Marcoullier I have (Maxwell's Demon), and it hardly discredits evolution-
[ncse.ngo]

I don't think my experience was an isolated one, this appears to be going on across the country, though Pennsylvania is about the worse state for such out of all the NE states. Factual knowledge should be taught in schools, not alternative views. If christians want to be their authentic selves, than maybe more of them should homeschool their kids as opposed to sending them to public school, that could solve that problem. Doing to them what they did to me is not what I would want, I simply think religious and political views should not be pushed in public schools, kids go to school to get an education about the topics they will use in every day life once they become adults. This issue could be solved very easily, if someone believes their right to religious belief has been compromised while attending public school, private or homeschool would be a good option, afterall why stick with something you feel is oppressing your viewpoints and beliefs.

@SpikeTalon why not have the atheists homeschool and the rest of us can have the schools with religious values.

@Marcoullier Anything run by government is not supposed to be influenced by any religious sectarian, as politics and religion do not mix. Our youths have already been dumbed down enough, no need to teach religion in school and dumb kids down even more. Since I strive to be a fair man, how's about I entertain your suggestion for a moment... How's about we do allow religion in public schools, all religions including satanism. I'm sure christians wouldn't mind such, right? If you think that's unreasonable, then you do not care about religious values, only your "values", and different point of views are what make the world go round. By the way, that would also include teaching atheism in school, being that christians refer to atheism as a "religion". Be careful what you wish for...

@SpikeTalon once God is removed from school or government, the void is filled by Satan. That is where we are going now. You are correct, I want my values. Or what I would call the values of western civilization that were developed in the thirteenth century.

There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes public schools anyway. It would be nice to eliminate the whole argument if education were privatized.

@Marcoullier If you want your values then good, have them, just don't expect others to take your claims or beliefs seriously is all I say on that. No, once god is removed from the equation the supposed gap is not filled by satan, if anything it is filled by... reality itself. When one sets aside fictional entities, one can then be a witness to the real world.

You're right, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes public schools, that much is determined by the citizens, who are the taxpayers. When taxpayer funds enter into the equation in regards to public education, no particular political or religious view should be taught as fact, only teach kids a natural understanding of the world based on what can be proven with evidence and that of which is readily available. I'm telling you, once we start to allow any religion to be pushed in public schools that would open the door for other religions to be taught, which would include satanism, and we don't need that nonsense as there is already enough bs that goes on in schools nowadays. I'm for privatized education as that probably would eliminate the needless arguing, that way parents could teach their kids whatever it is they want to, and there would be nothing left there for people to argue over.

There was no accomodation for muslim students where I went to school at, but that much may have changed since my school days. There is nothing wrong with being anti-christian or anti-jew or muslim, we should be teaching kids how to think critically and independently and not what to think. Nothing should be above question in life, that includes any religious belief system, and throughout history secular individuals had faced plenty of scrutiny from the religious crowds.

@SpikeTalon

we have seen stories where public school teachers have their students wearing muslim garb like the hijab for a day or for a week. Some have invited muslim speakers into classrooms and address the students. there have been stories in the news about schools budgeting for money to build foot baths and prayer rooms for muslim students and staff in public school buildings.

On your other point - it seems silly to say that we should not teach students what to think. That is after all exactly what is meant by education.

I would never suggest that any religion (christian or otherwise) per se' should be part of public school curricula. However I also do not see value in prohibiting discussions about religion, deity, creationism, god as it pertains to all manner of topics and subjects in basic education.

So much of classic literature is metaphorical of biblical philosophy and teachings. Can't have a math class without talking about the concept of "infinity" which seems at least obliquely related to something outside human ability to define. The idea of a god - or some other name if you choose for a supreme being is at least implied there.

Poetry and prose are full of metaphorical references to God, Heaven, Hell, Satan, Sin, Grace, Love, sacrifice, martyrdom, grief and joy...all are intrinsically necessary topics for discussion if you are going to teach poetry and prose.
Philosophy can't really be discussed without some reference to meaning of life and what animates it and after all, isn't philosophy really an attempt to establish some concept of morality and virtue? Again, very close to religious teachings.
I don't know - maybe you can teach these things in a purely secular way - devoid of any reference or thought even to god or a god or allah if you will...but I doubt it.
I believe it would be a good and helpful thing if public middle school and high schools included a curriculum for theological studies. Not to convert students but to educate - to expose them to the very concept at least of something greater than the sum of their parts. Give them something to consider and to perhaps later decide for themselves concepts of good and evil, right and wrong and whether or not life itself matters.
Have you ever hear of a man named Joseph Campbell? He's dead now. He created a program called "Transformations of Myth Through Time" . I believe this was included in college level education in some schools both public and private.
I don't see how teaching students at any age about at least the concepts of God and spirituality is harmful in any way. Besides if you are atheistic and you don't want your school age son or daughter "exposed" to those ideas you should always have an optional alternative for them to work on.

@iThink Save the theological courses for college, when it comes to taxpayer dollars being part of the equation only factual knowledge should be taught. Creationism is not science. Besides, alot of public schools already do teach basic beliefs of major world religions, they are mostly taught from an historical point of view, but as I mentioned before there are no shortage of exceptions to that. It is not silly at all to not want to teach kids what to think, education should be about teaching them how to think for themselves and utilize the scientific method.

As for the references to god in literature/math/science etc, that all depends on the individual's perspective. Human beings are good at making things up out of the blue. One person may observe something and think to themselves god was responsible, and another person may observe the same thing and realize it is a natural occurence or process. Things such as time and say, compass directions, are strictly human made concepts. In the end, it all depends upon the individual.

@SpikeTalon I agree - Creationism is NOT science. Science is about observable and measurable and objective things. Creationism is nevertheless a "theory" to consider if you're going to have a meaningful discussion about the origin of the universe. Logic and science tells us that nothing comes from nothing. This means there is a "source" to all perceptible things (the universe) that we humans can never know. Big Bang they say...well, where did the material itself that was blown into the cosmos come from what was the origin of that. Logic/common sense tells you that there must be a source to all things. Where did space itself, in which the proverbial big band occurred come from...what was it that blew up and where did it come from. It is nonsensical to say that something randomly came into existence. There must be a source.

Poetry and literature are chock full of references to god and to morality etc. It's definitely NOT a matter of perception on the part of the reader - it is a matter of the poets and the writers themselves who clearly knew what they were writing and why and who intentionally made their art and imbued it with those themes.

@iThink The big bang theory does not teach that something came from nothing, and I suspect so many people think it does because the theory behind the big bang is not properly taught in schools. I get what you're saying on creationism, but the only problem with creationism is that in order to believe what that teaches you pretty much have to believe in magic, and magic certainly cannot be proven to exist beyond any doubt. Who says everything that exists in the universe needed an intelligent designer? Also, if one believes in creationism and that everything in the universe was created by some sort of intelligent being, who then created that intelligent being? If you believe that intelligent being always existed outside of time, then in essence you do believe something was created from nothing. See where I'm going with that? Creationism is one big infinite loop, who created the creator?

There may be some source that created everything in the universe, but that doesn't mean it's intelligent though. Regarding the last part of your comment, I stand by what I previously said in regards to that. Who knows for sure what said poets etc were referring to, and how do we know for certain if they weren't suffering from some mental illness? Afterall, mankind has thought up literally thousands of deities. I contend those deities are nothing more than the by-product of human ego, in other words a personal deity in which one could relate to (a deity that has the same preferences as the individual). The subject of where morality comes from is another topic perhaps for another time. That is based strictly on perception, how the individual viewed said deity in their mind. It is all a splinter of the mind's eye...

@SpikeTalon I get what you're saying. First though I want to say I am not trying to persuade you one way or another. I'm just saying that origin of the universe theories are ALL theoretical Creationism is one theory.

You ask (rhetorically I know) about the origin of the Creator itself. That is why or how we know there are some things the human mind simply cannot fully understand. We can't really grasp infinity for example.

Logic tells us that something had to exist before the theoretical big bang. And whatever that is (some say it is God or The Creator Himself) we can not know objectively. Not only can we NOT know how the Universe came into being we also can not know what it is that animated life itself. Same thing in my mind.

Now then; my own belief / opinion is that a Creator (a God) created/animated life. I intuitively know or believe there is something more to me than the sum of my parts.
I have faith that I will perhaps know more after I die. I do believe Human beings have souls - a spirit.
Of course this "faith" comes up in the bible. I am not a biblical scholar by any means but this is one of the more well known passages.

Apostle Paul is asked "What is Faith"
His response is: "Faith is the BELIEF in things unknown; the Hope for things to come"

I choose to accept that as belief in things unknowable in this realm and hope to know more once my soul is separated from my body.

The point is it's a theory just as valid as any other theory if we are tying to explain existence itself.

What you choose to call "magic" other people call "faith and hope"

What some people call a "big bang theory" others call a wild ass guess...I like mine more...LOL

One way of looking at it...