Robaggio

Here's what my father, a Ph. D. in Biology says - he was raised Catholic.

"ID has no place in science class, if, for no other reason alone than the fact that it is not science- it's theology. You don't teach the pathagorean theorum in english class."

What we have here is a classification error. Too many people, on both sides of the argument, are getting involved in the schematics of details and not getting anywhere. ID advocates have to calm down and realize that most of us arn't attacking whether it should be taught, but rather where it should be taught. That said, I see no harm in trying to get ID into part of our school's already existing theology curriculum. Append it to the classes that already teach about Bhuddism, Christianity, Native American Polytheism, etc...

On another note: ID is for losers.

"And by agree, I mean I agree with the part on how life is so amazingly complex at the molecular level that even over the amount of time that the earth was sitting around before life arose it probably would require an intelligent designer of some kinds." - originally posted by mo

I think you fail to grasp quite how much time we're dealing with. Life isn't so amazingly complex- especially on the molecular level. The simple structures that a cell is made of exist and occur naturally outside of life. The phospholipid bilayer (cell wall) for example, occurs naturally in aquatic environments without any foriegn influence. When you begin to understand the various modules that comprise a cell, you begin to understand that the development of life isn't quite so unnatural at all. It's rather quite natural. You could argue however, that this only is part of the grand 'design'. I could argue however, that this message is a banana.