Intelligent Design

I have too much work to do to write another long winded ranting post, so I'm just gonna copy and paste the convo I just had w/mike cause it summarizes a lot of good points.
KaratChic03 (12:40:36 PM): but basically our lovely prof. avalos is after the gonads of the christian professors again. He's pissed that prof. Gonzales is one of the main ppl involved in the intelligent design theory. Since Gonzales works at ISU Avalos is afraid that ISU will somehow be assoc. with intelligent design and labled the "intelligent design" campus. So instead of just trying to limit how it's taught he doesn't want it to be taught at all because it's not an appropriate view from an sci. ed stance b/c it's not technically "science" and they can't prove it.
Toyotarox01 (12:41:02 PM): ahh, okay
Toyotarox01 (12:41:04 PM): i heard about that
Toyotarox01 (12:41:04 PM): right
KaratChic03 (12:41:07 PM): ignoring the fact that avalos is a prof. in the religious studies dept. and has no business dictating what's taught in the sciences
Toyotarox01 (12:41:15 PM): yeah, that's the part i thought was funny
KaratChic03 (12:41:28 PM): but he made enough of a fuss that not only did it make the DM register and the NSTA website, but they had to have a special faculty mtg on it
Toyotarox01 (12:41:30 PM): i thought it was gonna be the other way around, the religious studies dude wanting ID and the science guy smacking him down
Toyotarox01 (12:41:40 PM): but oh wait...i forgot
Toyotarox01 (12:41:49 PM): religious studies on a college campus really is an oxymoronKaratChic03 (12:41:57 PM): ??
Toyotarox01 (12:42:27 PM): generally speaking, "religious studies" departments at larger universities tend to lean toward the aethist side of things
KaratChic03 (12:42:37 PM): yeahKaratChic03 (12:42:41 PM): here is no exception
KaratChic03 (12:42:51 PM): Avalos is the head of the atheist/agnostic society
Toyotarox01 (12:43:04 PM): right, i remember hearing that
KaratChic03 (12:44:11 PM): so yeah, basically ISU shouldn't teach anything that's not an established fact
Toyotarox01 (12:44:24 PM): yeah
KaratChic03 (12:44:34 PM): which means that we lose half of our biol./phys./chem. curriculum
KaratChic03 (12:44:39 PM): because most of those are "theories"
Toyotarox01 (12:44:40 PM): the problem with ID is that its associated with crazy conservative christians
Toyotarox01 (12:44:42 PM): EXACTLY
KaratChic03 (12:44:44 PM): not established fact
Toyotarox01 (12:44:54 PM): there are very few known things in science
Toyotarox01 (12:44:58 PM): tehre are things accepted as fact
Toyotarox01 (12:45:04 PM): but most things we just assume are true
Toyotarox01 (12:45:12 PM): like 90% of atomic theory
KaratChic03 (12:45:14 PM): and while ID may have an association, so does evolution...Darwin was not exactly an angel either
Toyotarox01 (12:45:17 PM): (i exaggerate, but still)
Toyotarox01 (12:45:18 PM): lol
KaratChic03 (12:45:49 PM): exactly and if we follow the logic that they use in arguing against ID then we also have to reject evolution because it technically cannot be "proven" either
Toyotarox01 (12:46:14 PM): lol
KaratChic03 (12:46:18 PM): evolution has become an established idea but people tend to forget that it still is only the idea of a man
Toyotarox01 (12:46:19 PM): but evolution is...fact...
KaratChic03 (12:46:28 PM): no one really knows
KaratChic03 (12:46:32 PM): I'm not saying that either is right
KaratChic03 (12:46:45 PM): but there has to be some assumptions made in order for science to progress
Toyotarox01 (12:46:49 PM): the biggest problem with ID is that its associated with people who honestly believe God created the world in 6 24 hours days
Toyotarox01 (12:47:25 PM): by "associated" i mean that the perception among the majority of people in this country is that IDers believe that the world was created in 6 days
Toyotarox01 (12:47:30 PM): which isn't true, at least not as far as i understand it
Toyotarox01 (12:48:39 PM): personally, i think evolution is an okay theory
Toyotarox01 (12:48:45 PM): but that "something" is behind it
KaratChic03 (12:48:52 PM): me either, I mean yes you learn the creation story if you grow up in the church like we did, but I never learned that by DAY they meant the period of 24 hours that we arbitrarily assign time to
KaratChic03 (12:49:04 PM): yeah, people always want to know my view
KaratChic03 (12:49:17 PM): because they wonder if it's a conflict of interest for me to be christian and a sci. teacher at the same time
KaratChic03 (12:49:30 PM): I like the term creative design
KaratChic03 (12:49:40 PM): it's one that a friend and I came up with during high school
Toyotarox01 (12:50:00 PM): yeah, exactly
Toyotarox01 (12:50:13 PM): its only psycho southern baptists who think that its a 24 hour day
Toyotarox01 (12:50:24 PM): lol
Toyotarox01 (12:50:26 PM): creative design
Toyotarox01 (12:50:26 PM): nice
KaratChic03 (12:51:42 PM): evolution is basic on sound science and in theory it should work, but we have no concept of how it actually started, we have guesses, but until the day we can actually create life w/o having sex or cloning something that was already alive, it had to start somewhere, w/something, w/someone. And why is it so hard to believe that evolution is the way in which we characterize a set pattern of creation? Why is it so hard to believe that God could have designed beings that would change to their environments? After all, he is God, we can't say he's all powerful and then turn around and say he CAN'T do something....