It's indisputably ethical to oppose intelligent design; philosophy can not be brought into the class room as a scientific theory. If a hypothesis can not be proved using the scientific method taught to elementary school students, how can it be considered a potential contribution to scientific knowledge?

Actually, it sounds like "criticized" may be too strong a word: the article I read from Waco made it sound more like he was simply using a Bible verse as a springboard to make a point. It's easy to believe, though, that he meant to be a touch provocative-- a skill many teachers employ in making their lectures interesting and memorable.

Sounds like he made his point rather effectively!

Nothing with any intelligence would design a head that looked like Bill's.

"philosophy can not be brought into the class room as a scientific theory. If a hypothesis can not be proved using the scientific method taught to elementary school students, how can it be considered a potential contribution to scientific knowledge?"

This is in itself a philosophical statement. The idea that the scientific method is the only arbiter of truth is a philosophical statment.

Bill Nye is a looser

no, the scientific method -literally- defines science. There is no philosophy about it. If it follows the rules of the scientific method, it is science. If it does not, then it is -not- science.

Not that hard.

All they really need to do is have kids read both like I did and make their own opinion. By forcing "Intelligent Design" on kids as the only truth is to force a religion. Also to those who really think about it a Christian can say that "God" started the "Big Bang" thus both can be right and the fight ended. Yet that is too easy so we have to make sure this fight never ends otherwise how would we pick our leaders. by their policies? but we are so used to it being intolerance and petty things.

"The idea that the scientific method is the only arbiter of truth is a philosophical statment."

Using a rational sentence to propose that an unscientific method might be another arbiter of truth is truely paradoxical.

Well done, you've just stuffed up your own argument!

But if you know of an irrational system that holds more "truth" than science, then I'm all ears.

Don't get me wrong, it's a funny joke indeed, but maybe it's not good to confuse the children like this.

(an unscientific method must have at least one irrational statement within it that will contradict itself somewhere along the line QED).

Many atheists feel that it is simply a human weakness to want to believe in gods. Certainly in many primitive human societies, religion allows the people to deal with phenomena that they do not adequately understand.

If you believe in evolution, then tell me how co habiting things such as plants with flowers and pollinating insects..

The exist in a perfect symbioses, and neither can exist without the other...

therefore how did they come to "evolve"? Why would a flowerless plant become a flowering plant that required more energy(previoussly aesexual) and the symbioses of another organism (and its energy) to be sustained?
How did one come into being without the other? What would drive them to change if the other wasnt already present? Which came 1st?

Evolution cannot solve this problem, and yet many such problems as these are highly disregarded and ignored by "scientists".. yet they teach it as if it were facts.