Intelligent Design

I did not compare evolution to creation. I did not advocate the instruction of creationism in a scientific classroom. Your assumptions about my own motivations or thought are astonishing.
First, it doesn't matter if I believe a big invisible man created the Earth in six days, because religious text and meaning have nothing to do with science, particuraly in this case where they seem to be diametrically opposed. Obviously, it is impossible to explain a creation theory by scientific standards because such a theory would not hold to accepted scienctific methods. I argue that evolution theory does not hold to scientifc standards either. Therefore, a scientific hole in a religious argument doesn't mean much because the entire text is supernatural to begin with. However, a scientific hole in a scientifc theory is critical that is why I mention it. Secondly, I have a great respect for the natural teachings and knowledge that hard science can provide, and I have said as much. Generally, I only opppose basic scientific thought or action in two areas, one is regarding teaching evolution, which I regard as shaky at best, especially with the decline of Darwinian teachings and the convoluted and often incomplete teachings that make it into textbooks these days. The second is when science departments demand my tax dollars to perform possibly immoral acts and then complain about government restriction when a popular uprising ensues. Unfortunately, both of those issues have come up on this blog, perhaps clouded your view of my opinion of science. Thirdly, I take exception to your assertion that I have an uneducated view of science. I have invested many hours studying the history, nature and discoveries scientists have given mankind throughout the centuries. This includes big names like Newton, Einstein and Hawking to the lessers like Pascal and Keplar. For them I have great appreciation. In any case, simply because I point out a inconsistency in a scientific theory, and because there may be a similar inconsistency in a religious idea doesn't really matter in regards to the argument I was making. I was offering an opinion on intelligent design in the classroom, which I think should not be there, and I added a corollary that evolution should also be excluded for its questionable nature. What that has to do with any problems you have with views I might hold on a subject marginally related is curious. Perhaps we can run through and identify a series of contradictions in my views, but for the purposes of this blogging subject, I don't see the relevance to my asserted contradictions to evolution teaching in the classroom. Fourthly, I don't make these assertions because I want to see science destroyed or marginalized, but because I want science to make stay true to it roots and purpose. I believe that the dipping of science into ideology, as I think evolution has become, will permanently weaken the pursuit of natural knowledge in the accepted academic sense. Lastly, simply because the periodic table was incomplete at its first conception and is now accepted as law doesn't speak to this issue because evolution is entirely entirely different. By that reasoning every bogus or thinly evidenced scientific hypothesis should be taught in a classroom because further research "might" reveal it to be true. Let me tell you about the virtues of spontaneous combustion then, or perhaps, spontaneous generation. Besides, the periodic table wasn't accepted as law or doctrine until after it was completed or at least fashioned into a convincing and viable form. Evolution has not yet met that standard, but yet it is presented and taught as if it had. That isn't science, that is ideology and I don't want classrooms puporting to teach objective and naturally revealed truth stocked with ideolouges. My point here is very simple, but your rebuttal has both uneccesarily expanded the discussion and introduced unrelated analogies in an attempt to complicate my argument. Therefore, to keep it simple I reiterate that I do not think ID should be taught in classrooms, similarly because evolution does not readily appear to meet scientific standard by my estimation, it should also be excluded from the classroom. Religion is fine for religion class, and I have never said otherwise.