Michele Bachmann supports allowing intelligent design to be taught in schools. What's your opinion?
I believe Intelligent Design and evolution should be taught in school, since I learned after researching both that one is as valid as the other, and both start with faith. Intelligent design starts with faith in a creator and evolution starts with faith in the belief that life evolved from non-life on its own. Neither can actually be proven.
Now lets see.... archeologist have found items and have tests that gives a whole lot of truth to evolution... can anyone show us the same form of investigating to give some proof to 'Intelligent' Design?
(??faith in the belief that life evolved from non-life on its own)
Evolutionist have faith in the fact that knowledge tells us that life began and then evolved with life. (not non-life)and not (on its own)
Indeed one can have faith in evolution based on the fact that there was energy, always, and that energy cannot be "invented" or "destroyed."
It was the energy of the sun warming the waters of the deep and enriching the atmosphere with matter that caused the algae to merge and develope eventually into the fish that walked (eventually) on ground.
From there the mammals evolved and later, us. We are 98%water, and we were born in water on the blue water planet we call earth.
This evolutionary process does not eliminate the source of the energy from the picture. It simply uses different words to describe the phenom.
If you want intelligent design taught in schools, it should be in a religion class, not a science class. ID claims the existence of an intelligent agent that guides and manipulates the development of life, but it offers no empirical evidence for this entity. It merely points to areas where there is incomplete understanding about certain complex structures in biology, and then asserts that the only possible explanation is an overseeing designer.
This is a basic "god of the gaps" argument. The problem with this strategy is as real science inexorably answers these questions, the gaps get smaller and smaller, requiring the Incredible Shrinking God to be the default answer for less and less.
Invisible entities used to be the go-to explanation for just about everything, from lightning to disease, and today nobody's proposing that Thor should be taught alongside physics and meteorology, or that evil spirits should be taught alongside biology and medicine.
The very beginning of life on Earth from inanimate matter is called abiogenesis, and is not part of evolutionary theory. The chemistry and conditions of the early Earth were very different from today, so it is difficult to know exactly how inorganic material first began to reproduce itself in as proto-life, BUT following the same pattern of how so many other "gaps" have been filled in with good, solid scientific evidence and explanations that actually work, it's just a matter of time before we do understand how it occurred, and even reproduce it in a lab.