Okay, I'll skip out on points 1 and 2 and address 3 only.

Intelligent design isn't even close to being a science and should NOT be taught in schools under any circumstance.

Evolution is based on solid theory at least. ID is based on belief, nothing more. It has no business being in school.

But Intellegent design has too much of a religous feel to it. It's the belief in a creator, no? That can't ever really be proven. I think there has been some testing regarding evolution. Microbes and whatnot.

The two are in different realms of study... Evolution is a science about how life developed in it's current forms from previous forms - based on evidence and experiment. ID is a philosophy/religion about an invisible unmeasured force (God) behind evolution - there is no evidence that either supports or falsifies ID.

It is my view that "debates" of the relative merits of each fail from the very start because of an inherent misunderstanding by the ID supporters of what the nature of science is... as well as a misplaced notion that evolutionary science is somehow bent on the elimination of religion.

Couldn't religionistic viewpoints possibly accept that evolution is a means to an end for their god? He creates through the process of evolution? The theories don't need to be competing.

A reasoned discussion on evolution vs Intelligent Design is that like a reasoned discussion between the Tooth Fairy and the Third Law of Thermo-dynamics? Some people simply prefer to wake up in the morning and find a quarter under their pillow, while others simply like to just wake up.

I hope to god that S.P.A.O. is just trolling with his first point.

I don't think most people really argue with the small scale evolution, like with the microbes or with Darwin's finches, but with big leaps like from a frog to a monkey (an exaggeration, of course).

Creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, but when teaching evolution the holes in it should be acknowledged. As S.P.A.O said evolutionists can come to think about their ideas as a religion and get just as defensive about it as creationists.

For me, God knows what He did. I really don't care too much about the issue.

S.P.A.O. - perhaps you refer to the sub-group of atheists who use evolutionary and cosmological data as "evidence" of the non-existence of God. This sort of philosophizing also does not belong in a science class (not that it actually is being brought into science classes as a rule [there may be exceptions]... usually it is more a straw-man argument brought out by creationists who wish to scare people that public schools are somehow bent on making our children god-less communists or something).

I'm not trying to insult anyone here, but: if you honestly think that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory and/or that it isn't supported by evidence, you don't need a discussion - you need a decent schoolteacher.

Invictus - evolution NEVER works in big leaps. It's always cumulative little changes over a long, long period of time. To give you an example, no being evolved from having no eyes to having eyes in a short time - it evolved incredibly slowly from just happening to have light-sensitive elements in some cells, to having more of those cells, to having enough to actually be able to vaguely differentiate not only between dark and light, but also between dark and light in roughly different directions, etcetera etcetera until you have something vaguely resembling eyes after millions and millions of years.

And even my example here has been sped up ridiculously.

Invictus - and what holes exactly are you referring to? Every science (or any field of knowledge) has areas that are still under study... "strangely" enough, evolutionary science is the only one where anyone proposes that we "teach the controversy". What controversy is there in evolutionary science? Please be specific. The distinction between so called micro-evolution and macro-evolution to which you refer to is a false controversy drummed up by creationists... there is no such debate within the scientific community (geneticists, biologists, paleontologists, geologists, bio-chemists).

I said nothing in my post to let on that that was MY position, that is just the argument some make.

But to play Devil's Advocate, how can that process for the development of eyes be scientifically proven? That seems like faith is being put in evolution to cover the gaps, just like religion is used to answer unknown questions. Are they really different then?

Once more, while I don't think about it much and place very little importance on the whole issue I believe in evolution. I don't need a seven day creation to believe in God.

Evolution vs. Inteligent Design
Chemistry vs Alchemy
The sex theory of reproduction vs the stork theory of reproduction
The germ theory of disease vs the evil demon theory of disease

In each of these cases we have an overwhelming amount of evidence and 99.99..% of scientists (in that field) on one side vs a couples of crazies on the other side.

I don't know about that, there are crazies on both sides of the Evolution/I.D. debate.

Invictus - yes, God could conceivably be the filler in every one of those gaps... but you might as well take the sophistic view that the world disappears when you are not looking at it... there is no evidence of god. The fact that there is theoretically a possibility that God is simply making it look like species evolved from common ancestors hardly makes it a workable scientific theory. Science relies on natural explanations... the super-natural cannot be invoked. This again does not exclude God - simply it does not address it.

the fact that a crazy person agrees with me on a subject does not disprove my view. Hitler, for example, was a vegetarian. Hardly proves anything negative about vegetarianism.

No, but it does prove that,. if you'll allow me to borrow your metaphor, not all vegetarians are right.
The problem with this debate is that neither side is willing to compromise.

You aren't listening to me.

I do not advocate teaching intelligent design. I believe in evolution as God's vehicle for making life. Whatever scientists discover about evolution does not harm my faith, since my belief in God is separate from that.

Don't pigeon hole me like that. I'm not a scientist. I don't think scientists should have God come into their studies, I just think that science fits with my faith. Don't make me out to be one of these people who have half a foot in a flat earth. You're making ridiculous assumptions about me that are totally unsupported and even contradicted by what I wrote.

Don't have such a knee jerk reaction that I'm a crazy because I didn't phrase my beliefs exactly like yours, even though there doesn't seem to be much practical difference between them.

Good grief.

To the I.D. people. If there is devine control, than why would there be a need make interventions. Why not make an universe with a set of laws with unavoidable results and let it evolve without intervention. Anything less suggests at least a less than perfect being that likes playng god games, or there is no god.

Re: eye evolution...
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/43/79543-004-C3F00EE8.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Basic path theorized:
1. photoreceptor proteins and eyespots (as seen in many organisms)
2. pit eyes (as seen in planaria and ancient snails)
3. pinhole camera eyes (as seen in a nautilus)
4. lensed eyes
The eye is NOT a case of "irreducible complexity" that the IDers claim... each step in the evolutionary path both to our eyes and to the eyes of radically different animals such as octopi has utility. ...and indeed, as noted above, many animals found sufficient utility in the intermediate steps to simply stop there and not develop a more complex eye such as what we have.

Invictus - I recognize your view (and, yes, we're not necessarily that far apart)... I was addressing the view you supported as "devil's advocate".

re (1):
- the same DNA evidence that is used in paternity tests and in murder trials can also be applied to other animals and plants. The same science that gets people sentenced to death (or freed from death row after X years) also allows us to compare how related two individuals are to one another => from this evidence we can build up a tree of life.

- we can examine the appearance and anatomy of animals and create a tree of life based on that.

- we can look at the chemical reactions happening and not happening in animals and based this we can create a tree of life

- Retroviruses: two animals with the same retrovirus at the same place in their DNA will have had a common ancestor. Using similarities here we again create a tree of life. Please note there is no instance at all of the following happening:
A has retroviruses V1 + V2, B V2 + V3 and C V1 + V3.

I could go on, but please note that all these separately built trees of life are all the same.

Also evolution has predictive abilities: Niel Shubin wanted to find a transitional fossil a fish/land animal. Pretty much he said, if evolution is true then I should find skeletons of these critters here (northern Canada). So he went there and found them.

Onar - who is saying that all who support evolution are "right"? (And who cares what they think?) :-) And what compromise do you think is appropriate?

S.P.A.O., I could be facetious and suggest that grammar would be better taught in schools than intelligent design.

There are two problems with intelligent design:

The first is that there are countless things that you can point to which do not look like they have been designed, from fish at the bottom of the ocean with misshapen skulls from actually having two eyes on one side of the skull to the appendix.

The second is that it doesn't seem to be too intelligent either. The HIV virus, tsunamis, and tornados don't appear to be too intelligent a solution to anything in my eyes.

Now for evolution. To reject evolution, you have to reject that you are more likely to reproduce if you have a genetic advantage, reject that offspring resemble their parents, or you have to reject that you can get chance mutations. The first is blatantly obvious, the second easily observed and the third scientifically verifiable. From thereon it is purely statistics.

In addition, we have seen evolution occur, among viruses, among moths in polluted towns (which have become black through mutation to camouflage better) and among dung beetles.

Hence it is scientific (if you want to claim that Darwin himself didn't present sufficient evidence, read his works first, please)

2. Is just a restatement of 1. and equally stupid

3. You think it is only "fair" to teach both because there is no way that you can argue against teaching evolution. We cannot be "fair" about how we teach. We cannot teach the epicurean hypothesis alongside Big Bang theory, we cannot teach French and English in an English lesson to be "fair", we cannot teach both Newton and Leibniz's notations for calculus to be "fair". We cannot teach every rival theory on anything, and we mustn't teach as equals theories as unequal as evolution and "Intelligent" "Design". It is to mislead people to suggest that "Intelligent" "Design" is a science. It is to mislead people to suggest that "Intelligent" "Design" is equal to evolution in merit, and it is wrong to mislead children when at school.

But I would love to be fair on this matter, genuinely fair, and give time to both in a science class. That is important to teach science, because then we can explain to children what is and is not science. We can explain why "Intelligent" "Design", why the Flying Spaghetti Monster, indeed why any theology is emphatically not science.

@Onar: "I don't know about that, there are crazies on both sides of the Evolution/I.D. debate."
You maybe right, but the I.D. side only has crazies.
Just because there are two sides doesn't mean that there is a compromise solution, sometimes one side is 100% right and the other side 100% wrong.
2+2 = 4 or 2+2= 6 let's compromise on 2 + 2 = 5 just doesn't work.
Or how about a compromise on slavery or equal rights.

Gentleman, do not confuse evolution with adaptation, first of all. What we have seen in viruses and moths is adaptation, and not evolution. We are not spawning mice from our viruses, and we are not making birds from our moths.
Second of all, I have never said that evolution is wrong. MY point is that, even though every body has said that there is scientific evidence for evolution, nobody has put forth evidence that is scientific. Multiple Trials? Controls? Certainly, some evidence exists, but do not call evolution a *scientific* theory until it is scientific.

sceptic_ka - lol...
I like to think of that as the News media idea of fair... Take any given subject... say torture... and if you interview someone who has data to show that coerced confessions are unreliable, references international and national laws that clearly make torture illegal, and quotes great philosophers that argue effectively that it is inhumane and evil... then you must somehow find a person somewhere to disagree with that first person... then you present the two as if there is a controversy and that the two views are entirely equal and unproven. Congrats - you are now fair and balanced. Somehow people come out of journalism school thinking that there are 2 (and only two... never more, never less) views on every subject... and that these 2 views are always completely equal and unprovable. But then, again, it could be simply a conscious strategy of obfuscation by partisans.

As too the previous arguments regarding fairness - we do, actually, teach two notations in Calculus. We do teach both French and English. granted, not in the same lesson, but we do teach them. We do teach the Big Bang theory, and we also teach alternatives as they come up.
By not giving alternates, we seem to teach is that Science is infallible, which is definitely not the case. We try to tell kids that science is set in stone like grammar, or history, and this is wrong. No one ins school has ever said "what they taught you here could possibly, just possibly, be incorrect," but it can. Science is like calculus, there is room for debate.

Evolution is only a theory.

Do you know what is also ONLY a theory? The Theory of Gravity. Nevermind the acceptance of things like Black Holes or various other galactic phenomenon.

These theories, like evolution, are proposed because they FIT. They explain things. Then other scientists see if they can disprove it. If there isn't any evidence definitively disproving it, it stands. That is how all theories work, not just evolution.

Allow us to apply this to Intelligent Design (a ludicris term invented to make creationism sound more scientific).

Guy 1: Earth is only 6000 years old.
Guy 2: Here's a bone that is over 6000 years old.
Guy 1: Shit, guess I was wrong (or in reality, "shit, I'll just ignore that.")

Tihs is how we DON'T apply scientific method.
Guy 1: Heres an idea (outlines it)
Guy 2: That sounds too complicated and is therefore wrong.