Originally Posted by Lothos
Inteligent Design would be given a fair chance in schools if it had sufficient scientific backing behind it and was able to provide a concrete display of the scientific research principles behind it. As this particular case was handled, forcing teachers to mention a theory without any physical evidence whatsoever goes against the very heart and soul behind science.
Science does, and has routinely hypothesized without physical evidence.
Additionally, there are times when science doesn't specificlly prove the existence of an item through observing the specific item, but instead by attempting to measure the hypothesized object's measurable or guestimated/measurable impact on neighboring objects.
e.g. we can't really see "black holes". <-- a gross over simplification but I hope you can catch my drift.
There are some very very inteligent people on both sides of the various arguments, and I'm not afraid to state that they're more inteligent than I.
the point has been made though, that the vastness of information on both sides is so far wide spread, that no single person can really grasp it all at once, let alone truly, and fully attempt to validate it all on their own - thus, they are forced to take at least portions of both arguments on faith.
faith that the person performing the tests, gathering the information, etc, etc, is doing so properly.
science is continuously being revised, and re-written.
So too is as an example, our modern understanding of some of the unquestionabley historically accurate depictions that are portrayed in the bible. (and/or other religious tomes from other religions)
both of which is good, one day we may have a definitive answer one way or the other.
until that time, most of us will make up our minds based on our own faith, impressions and/or research. :dunno: