Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution as an equally valid idea.

Let me start by clearly stating that I am trying to show that intelligent design is just as likely (if not much more likely) from a scientific viewpoint as the theory of randomness...err, I'm sorry, the theory of evolution. You will notice that I said intelligent design, not Christianity or any specific religion, although studying writings such as the Bible, the Quran and etc. would prevent alot of the ignorance we see in many people when it comes to the many different texts regarded as scripture. If you gave your youth a more open-minded and honest view of our existence, rather than stripping us of our very ability to be objective by attempting to pass off half-truths and assumptions as fact, then we would not have so much reason to believe that the generation before us can't be trusted. First let me say this; so many people argue over evolution, well evolution is a fact....BUT, to stretch it as far as many have requires the total absence of true, unbiased research, and a willful abandonment of logical thought process. It is almost funny to me the way in which some people view "natural selection". I'm not questioning the existence of natural selection, simply the way in which it is interpreted. Nature is choosing the good, and discarding the bad, but this happens by chance? It seems to me not only to be an equally valid thought that natural selection is part of a design, but that this would be the more logical assumption. So where should I go from there? I myself love to learn. I watch the science channel, the history channel, and all their contemporaries. It is interesting sometimes to see when they try to compete with each other, playing similar specials or documentaries about the same subjects, but with sometimes drastically different outlooks. It is especially enveloping to watch the science channel when they discuss physics and our universe. As I have watched it more and more and really studied some of this stuff, (astrophysics, quantum theory, cosmology, astronomy, these are alot of my interests), I begin to think that either alot of these scientists who are "at the forefront of the greatest era science has ever known" either are seriously making alot of assumptions in trying to fill the gaps of human pride and political correctness, or they are on some hardcore LSD. Heres an example of what I mean: Radiometric dating methods are based on isotope decay rates. The scientist compares the current amount of radioactive whatever to its half life and does some really complicated chemical stuff and some weird kind of math, and voila! we have a 30 million year old femur bone from a homoerection or whatever animal I'm gonna make up today. This scientist, however, is ignoring 2 things. Firstly, the half life is only a theory that we arrived at by reverse math. There is no data to suggest that the radioactive element ever was at it's half life, let alone it's full life, (if you will). They only assume so because they already assume the universe to be hundreds of billions of years old. Even so, it also leaves us to wonder why certain radioactive isotopes are even still in existence. If the universe were as old as the evolutionist's theories often required, then many or all of these isotopes would have long since decayed into their "decay product". This is not taken into consideration, because the observer doesn't want to consider it. Another example is the black hole. We honestly have no way of knowing what a black hole is. From the limited data that we have, we assume that it is some sort of inescapable vacuum. But we don't teach that as a theory, we teach it as a fact. the truth is, there is not enough data to rule out the possibility that a black hole doesn't affect all matter, or matter at all. It could affect only light, distorting light until, from our perspective, it seems that everything near the hole is bing sucked into one spot. To be fair, we also have no way of knowing if it is a stargate to a parallel universe, or possibly a portal that heavenly beings use to traverse the dimensions. My point isn't that we don't know, my point is that we act like we do. So there is a select portion of my argument why our current science curriculums are not fair, not unbiased, and much of what is taught is not fact, but rather peoples own assumptions and opinions being passed off as truth, while so many say that that intelligent design should not be taught for these very same reasons. Now I will show you why intelligent design is not just equally valid, it is more logical. I will try to make as much sense as possible in the hopes that I caught you on a good, open-minded day. P.S.- Notice that I did not really touch on old earth/young earth. I think that is it's own topic and deserves an entirely separate debate. "Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word." - (Taken from wikipedia) ... so what if I observe God's power? Science is observation. Sometimes observations can be misleading, and sometimes they can put your name in the history books. The thing is though, that while 90 percent of the world disagrees on who or what God is, 90 percent of us still acknowledge that he/she/it IS there. It doesn't take much observation to know that our tiny little planet has a perfect harmony to it; to look at our universe, and realize that all this could not have come from nothing. The biggest problem facing advocates of the big bang is what banged and why. I wont get into quantum theory unless you make me, but the fact is that many physicists are staring God in the face while desperately trying to reshape him into something else. You look around at all mankind has built. If I were a young archaeologist seeing the great pyramids for the first time, I would be in awe of their splendour, and immediately try to appreciate the labor that must have been put into them. But lets say I were to come up with another idea, the idea that maybe they weren't built, maybe they were natural formations. You would look at me like I were stupid, and this is a comparatively much likelier possibility then what evolutionists and bang advocates are saying. Now on to a better example. Right now, we are using computers to talk to each other, something that even our close ancestors probably never dreamed of. My computer was made by Dell. If dell had not made this computer, it would not exist. If I were to throw a hand grenade into a dell factory, it would not result in a fully functional computer. I could do it a thousand more times, not a chance of accidentally getting a computer out of the mess. Or take a dead frog outside and leave it in the sun for a million years. Here you have everything needed for life, but not in a million years would the decomposed frog molecules spawn new life. And yet, the evolutionist says that life somehow came from non-life. The creationist is looking at the facts, for instance that there is more information in one strand of human DNA than in any one (sometimes 2) volumes of the Encarta encyclopedia. A computer is not nearly as complex as we are, so if it is stupid to assume that one could come from absolutely no intelligent designer, then why should I assume different about life or our universe? A creationist is drawing the logical conclusion that something as magnificent and complex as life, or our universe for that matter, can only be the result of a design by something far greater than ourselves. The evolutionist is saying that the less logical idea is the more scientific one, while the person who believes the big bang is simply ignoring the truth before them. I have reached my word limit.