Why should ID be taught in science classes...

Beretta,
You really are being very stubborn. Anyone who followed the should creationism be taught in schools? thread will know that you are in favour of teaching ID. You have now adequately explained this on the new thread. Your position is now clear, and since any further pursuit of this topic is going to boil down to;
a; "ID is great and evolution is rubbish."
b; "No, evolution is great and ID is rubbish."
a+b; "Show your evidence!"
I suggest that you go ahead and show your evidence on the appropriate thread, i.e., So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work?.
Continuing to post a rehash of the same argument over and over just makes you look as though you have no evidence (which of course you do not). Several people have posted examples of the evidence for evolution, but you generally seem to prefer to ignore them. When you have responded it has been with arguments attempting to knock down this evidence. So far, you have not succeeded, mostly because you refuse to challenge the evidence face-on, preferring to just waffle and repeat yourself instead.
It is well past time for you to present your evidence for ID in an appropriate thread. If you cannot or will not, then please refrain from clogging up the forum with repetitious waffle. You have a real opportunity here to teach all of us ignorant evo-freaks what the real situation is, so why are you hiding your light under a bushel?
Shit or get off the pot Beretta.Oh, and by the way, How about the miracle of the banana? Or are you still sticking with that one?

---

Mutate and Survive

Here is the hoax; Taken from here ://http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/atheist.html
and here is the original claim you made about it; Here it is in the original context http://EvC Forum: Your reason for accepting evolution -->EvC Forum: Your reason for accepting evolutionand here is the banana that god made Doesn't look very pleasing to the taste buds, does it?
Your claim has been shown to be false, so you have moved the goalposts. From initially claiming that the edibility and defencelessness of the banana made it appear to be designed, you have moved on to citing the banana as an example of limited variability within fixed kinds. Please try and keep from getting your creationists dogmas muddled up in this way, or better still, follow the (working) links provided by RAZD (thanks for that; the other ones worked in preview)and make your case. I'm not going to help you clog up the thread with off-topic back and forth (again). Put up or shut up.

---

Mutate and Survive

Mea culpa.
Here is an attempt at something relevant.
I have said elsewhere that I am against ID in schools because I believe it to be false and because I do not believe that ID is science.
The reason why I think this issue is so very important is because teaching nonsense like ID wastes valuable lesson time. Most of the kids in the school system will receive no science instruction after high school, so lesson time is a valuable resource. What makes this even more crucial is the opportunity cost involved. Lesson wasted on ID could be better employed teaching kids about a subject of critical importance, namely global warming.
The topic of climate change is not without its own "teach the controversy" rows of course, but presuming that the precautionary principle casts any doubts to one side for the time being, we are left with a catastrophe on our hands. Even if only the most conservative estimates of the impact of climate change are correct, the damage to our ecosystems is going to be dramatic, with a human cost measured in millions of lives turned upside-down. If the real doom-sayers are right, we may even be facing a serious threat to human civilisation itself.
This is no time to allow religious fundamentalists to interfere with science education. Misrepresentation of the both evidence and the scientific method itself, is a feature common to both the ID lobby and the climate change nay-sayers. It is essential that we stand up to the propaganda of intellectual Luddites. Promoting genuine understanding of the science involved in climate change is the only way to make people accept its reality and change their lifestyles. Without this change in attitude, we are going to keep marching headlong into ecological disaster.
Go ahead and disbelieve evolution if you like, but just don't attempt to hamper the public's understanding of science, because we've never needed it more.

---

Mutate and Survive

Hi Hoot,
I get what you're saying about using creationism/ID as an example of science vs. pseudo-science, but I think that the phlogiston theory makes a much better and less contentious example. No-one believes in phlogiston today, but it was adhered to at one time with as much certainty as any modern creationist. Indeed, some of the arguments employed in phlogiston's favour sound very reminiscent of religious arguments, I seem to recall one that went; "You cannot measure the phlogiston, because it will shrink your measuring equipment.".
Unfortunately, many people around today still believe in creationism, which is going to undermine the message you are suggesting we try to teach. Before you know it we are knee-deep in controversy and the fundamentalist groups will immediately declare victory and start wondering where they can next chip away at education and science.

---

Mutate and Survive