Buttars is using this for his own political purposes and vendettas. Notice how much press he's gotten. As an ID'er, I DON'T want Buttars being the "expert" on it here.

For those who say ID isn't religious, they should think about something else, I resent that one would say that. It throws open the door for other crackpot interpretations like UFO's. I believe in ID, because I have faith in it. It does have some science in it, but the driving force behind it is the "higher intelligence," or "guiding force" and that to me is nothing but God.

I actually think that ID could be taught in a classroom, maybe as part of an intro to an evolution unit, but I resent that it has to be politicized. It doesn't have to be, especially not by someone like Buttars.

And yes, I do have experience with it being taught, back in high school in the 80's. I thought it was political then, was I ever wrong.

I have never had a problem with evolution. Neither have thousands of students who have gone through BYU either. We know what we believe. It didn't take a classroom teacher to teach it either. My parents were perfectly capable of teaching it.

It doesn't need to be made into a political spectacle, but unfortunately it is.

I don't need Buttars to tell me how I need to believe. I'm perfectly capable of that on my own.

Is Mr. Buttars next going to force teachers to give alternative views of history like I was taught in sixth grade: that Native Americans did not cross some "theoretical" land bridge but in fact, immigrated from the holy land? Yes, I was taught this. When I told my parents they came unglued. I still remember the fun, if not overly loud, conversation my Lutheran Dad had with my elementary school principal about this one.

Oh and please don't assume that law makers have degrees. Many do not. You might also look into the history of the Board of Regents and see how many of those folks have never acheived a college degree.

Excellent post, Phil. However, instead of being sad, let's all get mad. This issue is much bigger than just making Utah once again the butt of another national joke. This is going to affect economic development. What kind of high-technology company is going to want to relocate to a state where the workforce is "educated" like this? It won't happen. The voters of this state need to wake up and start making better-informed decisions based on something other than party affiliation and religious denomination.

#1 supports of teaching this are going about it the wrong way. They want this to be taught in Science class. Any true believer of the christian faith, or any religion for that matter will tell you faith and religion is not science. If you must pick an academic subject the closest you could get is Philosophy.

If you want to teach religion in school the conversation should be about teaching not just christianity and its beliefs in the orgins of life, but all faiths. There should be classes that teach the difference between Catholic and Jews, it should cover Muslims, Budhists, and others. The point should be to educate so people can understand the differences and conflicts, the histories and what make each unique. With that education a person could better understand their beliefs, their communities beliefs and make better desisions for themselves on what they want to believe.

The way this has been brought to the attention of the public and shoved down our throats is wrong, all wrong.

You can't expect other people to wear your shoes, and you can't nail your shoes to their feet.

J.W.

Oops, paragraph should have been clarified to say that my parents were perfectly capable of teaching about the creation and didn't need to rely on school teachers.

I just find it amusing that so many "scientist" types are aghast at mentioning any theory that even hints of being vaguely religious.

And despite what you might say - evolution is taught as fact, not as theory. It's never "well, we think evolution might have happened" it's always "evolution, that's how it happened."

So much for being open minded.

There's a simple reason for that Flint: it's not science. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with it, just that it doesn't fit in science. Science is a way of knowing that relies on certain methods and techniques.

One of things I hate about bills like this is it pits science against religion and for many of us, there's no reason to do so. I'm deeply religious and a scientist. I came to grips with reconciling these two systems of knowing years ago. We don't do our students any favors when we don't make them come to that same resolution. Their faith will be stronger, not weaker, when they do.

Your last statement again highlights the misunderstanding of the word "theory" as used in science. It doesn't mean "things we're not sure of" like it does in common usage. A theory is a collection of ideas consistent with the facts that we can observe and that can be used in a predictive way to explain things that will happen in the future.

The theory of evolution provides the most consistent explanation of the observable world and has the most predictive power, so it's the most popular theory. Come up with a new one that does better and people will use it. So far, no one has even come close.

Show me the predictive power of intelligent design. What phenomenon does it explain better then the theory of evolution? What experiment does it do a better job of predicting the outcome? And keep in mind, while doing so, it has to be consistent with everything we observe.

The purpose of teaching this topic in school isn't to compare it directly to Science Class and evolution. It's not to bring the awareness of God and the faith of Christianity into Public schools. It needs to be taught in an academic sense. If the student feels they want a more spiritual teaching, they can find that at Sunday school, or simply visiting with a community church.

If this is taught in school you need to remember its not going to be taught with passion like you would find at church, its going to be taught with the cold sterile atmosphere that is a classroom. Not too mention if something were to actually pass and begin to become part of the academic program, it would most likely be so washed and watered down, in and out due to court rulings and completely bastardized. Is that how you would really want it taught? I still firmly believe that the history and differences is far more important to teach than to make sure it is presented side by side in a science class as an alternative theory of how life was created. A bible most likely would not be allowed in the classroom, so with pictures of various skeletons and archeological records, which would be more believable to a child. Something they can see and touch, or something that requires faith and belief that takes and adult with conviction to understand?

J.W.