Discovery Institute's "Teach the Controversy" Should Not be Implemented into Science Courses.

(1) "Since, most people in the field of political science and economics, say anarchy is a bad form government should we strike it from our history books?" Of course not, it is part of history. I never said I.D. should be discoursed out of a history/philosophy of science course, but to implement it into a biology course and present it as if it was scientifically valid? Preposterous. "Your saying, we should let the few decide what everyone is taught. Even if it is against half of the populations beliefs?" What is taught in science courses is what is determined by the scientific community. To get one's idea through the whole community is like a battlefield, you have to fight through research papers and critiques to have it in the end polished and ready to be taught. 54% of autistic parents believe mercury caused their child to have Autism; the scientific community has shown substantial evidence to the contrary. Yet, do you see psychology courses teaching about how mercury causes autism? Do you see astrology classes? Pseudoscience is moot. "Shouldn't the school systems teach fact as fact, not theory as fact? Evolution is a theory it has not been proven. Intelligent design is a theory it has not been proven either. In my opinion the schools should teach fact and present all theories, thereby eliminating the possibility for censorship, while at the same time encouraging academic exploration." You've made several very flawed points here. The first of being which I find so common, and so elementary. In science, a fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true http://dictionary.reference.com... In science, a theory is a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. http://dictionary.reference.com... NOTE that when the word "theory" is used in science, it doesn't mean the more common colloquial definition "a guess". Remember, gravity is a THEORY. The purpose of a theory is to explain a collection of facts. Facts are simply observations. A theory explains these facts; a theory is a model. A fact of gravity is an apple falling, we observe the motion of an apple falling from a tree. The THEORY of gravity explains why the apple fell. Please do not refute by saying something along the lines of "well why didn't they make evolution a law instead of a theory since it supposedly has so much evidence?" This is because laws are analytic statements, usually with an empirically determined constant. A theory can be composed of laws. (2) "See above" See above as well. "I fail to see, what is illegitimate about mentioning the possibility of some external, intelligent force being one of many explanations on how particles came into existence. What is so devastating? I fail to see the impact." Scientists use observable physical evidence of natural phenomena to collect data. If something is unobservable, unfalsifiable, then what is the point of teaching it in science? I'm not saying you should tell everyone that God does not exist, but to teach about supernatural creators gives us nothing, it bears no fruit. It doesn't explain anything, and it won't help us in anyway. Something called naturalism. "Also I believe it fit to point out that evolution discounts the possibility of an intelligent designer on belief it cannot be proven there isn't one and it cant be proven there is one. Those who take the intelligent design argument believe that there is, while those who take the evolutionist point of view believe there is not. In reality it is a matter of belief." Totally untrue. You can be a theistic evolutionist. (3) Or perhaps energy was always here? And still, methodological naturalism applies here. (4) "However to say it is unscientific is an illogical leap." I have shown why it IS a logical "leap".