(R)evolution

Ah yes. It's that time of year again when state legislatures wind down for the year before the summer with a push on agendas, lobbyists make a last dash to their representatives and voters give a lukewarm thumbs up or down on any number of local or state issues.

So it comes as no surprise that Evolution has again come under fire from proponents of Intelligent Design.

The Kansas Board of Education will open hearings today to debate the teaching of Intelligent Design and suggest a more critical look at the Evolution citing that it's a controvertial theory. This follows several other states who have had similar debates for the last twenty years, some even involving stickers being placed on books stating that Evolution is only a theory and not fact.

Most states are trying to come to terms with what to teach in schools. Opponents of such debates, including the National Institute of Science, claim that such ciriculum violates the seperation of church and state. Proponents argue that schools are currently ignoring other creation viewpoints.

Honestly, between you me and the wall, Intelligent Design is a cop out. It's a weasly move to incorporate faith based ideas with the knowledge of science. It's saying, "Hey, we don't know what happened really. In fact, all we have to go on is this one book. We do know that you guys are all wrong."

Intelligent Design is the notion that life on Earth is too complex to have evolved by itself and must have been the brain child of some higher power, some architect that created the patterns by which life is constantly being updated. Think of it as a piece of software that's set to reinvent itself every couple months to adapt to its user. Now, the software designer isn't a deity, but it is smart enough to know that the user will eventually require the software to update in a certain pattern, so the writer will create that pattern along with instructions on when to adapt and how to follow the pattern.

Sounds like evolution to me. Self adapting system. The difference here is, ID says someone created it, Evolution says it happened on its own.

So who's behind this design that's intelligent? Not God, you say? Ok, who?

See, the problem these IDers are having is that no one is really disputing the fact that both their cabal and the Evolution Camp basically agree that life adapts according to some pattern. The difference is, the IDers are trying to force a deity into it under the guise of science, and it just won't fly. I'd rather have schools teach Creationism as a faith based idea and then compare it with Evolution as a science based idea, then debate it rather than introduce the tepid and weak theory.

I think I would be more inclinded to agree with the ideas behind ID if they could scientifically prove who the designer was.