I live not too far from where all of this is happening. I just want to know what everyone thinks about it. I figured that since it hit the Daily Show, some people here would at least be aware of it. If you're not familiar with it, here are some links to the latest news on it:
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/86976
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/86977
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/86982
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/86978
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/86984
http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/87192

Note: I am NOT asking which side you are on, I'm merely asking whether the school should be held responsible or not.

I believe that in teaching a science course, the school should teach that science, specifically what biologists say about evolution, and mention alternatives if necessary in some non-science class.

I am a religous fellow, and I didn't like evolution, and they wouldn't let me sit out, though I claimed that it is against my religion.

Dare I start the debate in this thread? Because I really want to....

I don't care, let's see what you got.

Well, here we go...

Let me say first off that Intelligent Design has no place whatsoever in the Science classroom. Intelligent Design has a major flaw that disqualifies from even being considered scientific: It has no testable hypothesis. For anyone familiar with the scientific method, this spells doom (from a scientific standpoint) for Intelligent Design from the very beginning. Without a testable hypothesis, ID is reduced to a bunch or words written on paper. It doesn't matter how convincing these words sound, if they cannot be physically tested, they are no more than a hypothesis. (And yes, that is different from a theory, capital-T or otherwise.) Should you happen to know of any testable theories put forth by ID, please by all means share.

Although this may discredit ID from being taught as scientific fact, why then does it not warrant mention as an "alternative" to evolution in scientific textbooks? The answer is that the idea of an "alternative" to a scientific Theory is an absoultely ridiculous notion. Do people seek "alternatives" to gravity? If so, what would they be? (Of course, there's always that old quip, "There is no gravity. The Earth sucks." ) Science seeks to explain how phenomena operate. Once the mechanism has been explained, there is no room for another explanation. An alternative mechanism cannot operate in tandem with the proven mechanism, for if it did, then it would not be an alternative, but already part of the explanation. An alternative cannot operate instead of the explained mechanism. Since it has been shown that the proven mechanism (some times) causes the phenomena, the alternative's existence would mean that there is no causal decision whether the explained mechanism or the alternative causes the phenomena, leading us into the untestable realm of the supernatural, outside the grasp of science. If the proven explanation is false and the alternative is the only cause for the phenomena, then the explanation would have never been proven in the first place because there would never have a been a causal link to prove. We therefore reach an absurdity when we assume that an "alternative" explanation to a phenomena can exist, therefore an "alternative" explanation cannot exist.

Of course, the above assumes that evolution is in fact proven. Put shortly, yes, evolution has been proven. When a theory is termed a Theory (capital-T), this means that is has come to be accepted true in the scientific community as a result of irrefutable experimental and therefore scientific results (notice - not evidence). I can provide you with a wealth of links demonstrating this should you wish to see what I am talking about.

Finally, the concept of ID even as a non-scientific, non-testable entity is just STUPID. It is merely the continuation of supernatural rationalization as an explanation for something we don't understand and is bound to be disproven someday, as is the trend with supernatural explanations for natural phenomena (gravity, the age/origin/geology/orbit of the earth, reproduction of life, weather, seasons, ad infinitum). The most complex reasoning behind ID is "There appears to be irreducible complexity in our world. Irreducible complexity only arises out of irreducible complexity. Therefore some other irreducibly complex being must have initiated this complexity. We cannot explain who this being is." Let us assume that the first postulate is in fact true. Even with this assumption, the entire theory falls in on itself. Occam's razor says when two possible explanations are presented, always pick the simpler one that relies on known facts. We know we are here. We do not know if this being is/was existent. Therefore is it more logical to assume that the irreducible complexity we see has always existed. Of course, ID proponents will continue to throw pseudoscientific garbage in light of this fundamental logical flaw with their theory, but none of it can refute ID's underlying infeasability.

Then, there is always the shady politics behind ID, but I'll leave that for another day...

Could not agree with you more

Personally I believe that we should stop finding religion in the unknown and what we can't explain. I also believe religion is "opiate of the masses." So maybe we should stop trying to justify everything we don't understand to some mythical power and start understanding and accepting the universe for what it is

I agree wholeheartedly agree with the previous two posts.

I eagerly await rivereye's rebuttal.

(Also, speaking of politics, anyone recognize my new icon?)

Yes, but I don't get it. Is it some sort of Ying Yang thing?

I am not trying to convert people here, I believe in creatinism, and that is that. Think about this, if you take the bible, man started with Adam and Eve, if you follow the genealogies, man has only been on earth for about a few thousand years, not 1/2 million plus. Also, God says that all creatures were made on the same day, well, those on the land anyways. Also, scientists have stated that carbon14 testing has its flaws, as in inaccurate. Also, if the earth were moved a tiny bit in eaither direction from the sun, the climate of hte earch would change drastically, things don't happen by chance, there is a reason.

Here's my thing with the Bible. There are those who say it has to be true because it was written by God. But then what says that God wrote it? If you say the Bible, the logic falls apart. You have to have an outside piece of evidence. If it was written by God (or at least commanded to be written), then there should be absolutely no contradictions. There are. One of the commandments is to not kill. Doesn't God ask Moses to kill Egyptians? How would that keep within the "Laws of Life?"

Okay lets see if I can rebutt all of those. Firstly geneology can't be used to track human existance. Would a primate or even early human keep records of family history. No! Only oral passage existed, and thus no records. Next how do you know what god says. Yes, it is written in a document, but remember that, that document was created by humans! Next how does the accuracy of carbon 14 testing change anything. So we should trust the word of those who lived two thousand years ago over a test just because it can be off by a thousand years or so, which isn't much in the span of time. Your last comment boils my blood the most
This seems to be the claim of every religious follower. Have any of you ever thought about this. There is a reason we haven't found any other signs of intelligent life in the universe. It is rare for these conditions to exist, but they HAVE to. It is impossible in an infinite universe for these conditions not to exist on a single plannet. In fact, in an infinite universe these conditions have to exist on an infinite amount of planets (its just probability with an infinite number of trials). Now suppose that the earth we live on had not been aligned properly. Life would have existed on a different plannet somewhere else in out universe. We (as in intelligent life, most likely in another form) would be on a different plannet! Also this probability that life is very rare on plannets has become more and more proven due to scientific discovery. We shouldn't be dealing with creatures on other plannets, simply because the chance that it would happen is so little that the chance that it takes place near us is so miniscule. So you see that last statement has to be the most rediculous argument ever made for religion. I am not criticizing you Rivereye, many religious advocates make the same statement, and I fully believe that it is garbage.

Well there you go, my argument is hardly as pretty as John's is, but I like to get right down to the dirt! *Awaits the coming debate*

God does allow killing in a rightful war, which was with the egyptions. There is also a point of faith you need. The problem with evolution, is why haven;t we found the"missing" link between monkeys and humans. I don't believe that one exists.

There is no single missing link. We have uncovered many steps towards humanity from apes. And evolution has been proven. There are soooooooooo many things I could mention to prove it!

Who said it had to be between humans and apes? Won't a bird-dinosaur link prove it as well? Plus, if God existed, wouldn't everyone beleive the same thing? Last time I checked, the Native Americans never heard of God before the 15/16th century...

<Semi-OT>Read "Cosmos" by Carl Sagan. It's not full-blown against religion, but it does point out some things where society went wrong...a very good read no matter what you believe.</Semi-OT>

you know what?, I am just going to sit out on this topic, I am badly outnumbered, I don't think it will change, this doesn't mean you win though.

It's a natural tendency of intelegent life to justify the world around them. Instead of actually proving everything they believe, usually they just create scenereos which they find appealing. Usually a higher power controls everything that they don't understand. IE: the movement of the sun, creation, procreation, universe, gravity, etc etc

Precisely. I personally have issues with hard-line fundamentalist religion, but that's just me.

As I said before, read Cosmos by Carl Sagan...a very good read for everyone.