Bush promotes ID

That's probably the biggest strawman that I've ever seen.Evolution doesn't claim that fish magically turned into birds.Evolution is a description of an observable mechanism. Evolution describes the gradual change in forms of life over time through small random changes guided by selection. We can easily see this mechanism today, all around us. We simply iterate this mechanism backwards in time, assuming that it has always worked the way it works today (as there is no evidence to suggest otherwise).Similarly, we see the motion of the planets around the sun, and extrapolate that they have always moved in the same orbital patterns since they first formedEvolution says nothing about a fish turning into a bird. All it does is describe the mechanism that causes changes to forms of life over time. That mechanism is observable fact. "Speciation" is simply many of these tiny changes adding up over many generations, until the descendant is widely different from the ancestor.

How about we do that right now, shall we?Scientific theories describe mechanisms that explain observable data. Evolution describes the mechanism (small random changes between generations guided by selection) that explains the observable data (different species with a common ancestor).ID describes....nothing. No mechanism. Just "God did it," which isn't an explanation at all. Since ID does not describe any mechanism, it is NOT science.The basic premise of ID is that life is too complex to have been brought about by random chance and natural processes - it must have been designed because it is complex.ID rests entirely on the assumption that complex entities MUST be designed, and that this fact is self-evident. It's simply not true. A ball of yarn attacked by a kitten is "complex," sometimes even irreducibly so. The kitten hardly "designed it." If we use human intelligence as an example of what designed entities look like (since we have no other example to work with), we see that intelligently designed things are LESS complex than those found in nature. Tghis assumption is a simple appeal to incredulity - "it couldn't possibly have happened that way!" with no evidence to support the claim.Since ID's assertion rests entirely on this assumption, and that assumption is blatantly false, ID has no scientific merit. Period. Bull. See above. That would BE the peer-review process. When bad science is published, other scientitst show it to be bad. That's the point. And posts like this assure me that Creationists have no comprehension of the facts.

Bingo.The majority of people don't know a whole lot about science. Let scientists determine what will be taught in science classes. Id ID and Creationism want to be taught in schools, they need to be taught in a theology class. An elective theology class.

A local family took it even farther (in fact, I believe one of the family members was a classmate of mine - I could certainly believe it of him, and the names match) than those pics.They covered their entire house with sheet aluminum. Not aluminum siding - just big sheets of metal. They just leaned it up against the walls. Not just an individual - the entire family believed that the aluminum sheets would protect them from "harmful magnetic waves" and such.It got local news coverage when the rest of the neigborhood forced them to take it down becuase it was an eyesore.