Intelligent Design should not be taught as science.

"Well, okay, I guess some random theories don't deserve to be taught. However, the idea of intelligent design is one that has been with humanity for many millennia. Macroevolution is not set in stone, and neither is intelligent design. Furthermore, the concept of intelligent design is present in nearly every religion on Earth, and many scientists are also religious. Intelligent design is far from a "crackpot theory"." - The idea of geocentric universe was around for thousands of years too. That doesn't make it correct or a valid theory anymore. Should we teach the geocentric universe theory because it has been around for a while? No. The longevity of an idea has nothing to do with the validity of it. You can believe the world is flat for as long as you want, but that doesn't make it so. "No scientific merits? How about the creation of life? Evolution does not explain how life suddenly appeared in the first place. Intelligent design DOES." - Evolution is not responsible for explaining how life appeared, so this "origin of life" argument is invalid. "In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) - You have not at all proved that ID is science. It simply does not fit the definition. "...science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Please, if you will, show me where ID has used scientific method to discover something. Show me some of their research that helps to prove an Intelligent Designer. Don't show me stuff that tries to disprove evolution (I can probably show you why it's wrong anyway). I want to see scientific research that shows an Intelligent Designer may exist. "And what is the proof that 6000 years is incorrect? We've used scientific tests to predict an age of 4.5 billion years, but trying to test things that happened years ago has its flaws." - Well, this is certainly an interesting argument. There is pretty much a mountain of evidence that the Earth is not 6000 years old. There are rocks that have been shown to 3.9 billion years old. I doubt any scientific miscalculation could occur to account for such a difference. By I doubt, I mean I am completely sure. - As to your excerpts from a 192-page book that examines Barney the purple dinosaur and dinosaur toys along with its geologic column, I can only say this: Who is Phil Philips? He is some unscholarly, non-academic random guy who wrote a book that now sells for 65 cents on Amazon. The book is not peer-reviewed. It is also wrong on several levels. Here's the thing: Gravity is just a theory. Evolution is just a theory. Geologic time is just a theory. The reason is that we do not know for sure that one day, a book will fall up instead of down. Gravity is the theory that is most perfect right now. So is evolution. So is geologic time. ID is not even a valid theory. To reiterate: The world is not 6000 years old. Radiometric and carbon dating has shown the world to be 4.5 billion years old and life itself to be billions of years old. 6000 is not anywhere near 4.5 billion. No mistake would be made to make up for that unimaginably large difference. You would have to spend 1.2 million dollars PER DAY to get rid of 4.5 billion dollars in one year. You would have to spend 16 dollars per day to spend 6000 in a year. See the big difference? "I have not conceded that ID is the Bible in disguise. It is merely a popular theory of life's existence that all religions besides atheism and maybe a few others believe. The schools don't have to teach ID as fact; they can teach it as yet another theory in addition to the many we already have." - You certainly have. In fact, I think you are fighting for the Bible to be taught as science, which is extremely unconstitutional. You said: "Language distribution, and people distribution, is in the story of the Tower of Babel. The flood is the story of Noah's Ark." I asked you to give me science; you gave me actual examples from a religious text that has no basis in reality. How have you not conceded that ID is just the Bible in disguise when you yourself are basically saying the Bible should be taught as science? Preaching a religious text is unconstitutional. Therefore, it cannot be taught in schools. Again, I hate to say you have lost because of this point, but it is devastatingly bad for ID to be connected with Christianity as tightly as you have connected them. Again, your origin of life argument is invalid. You keep saying ID explains the origin of life, but you have not said how. What does ID say on the topic? It isn't even relevant to the argument since abiogenesis, not evolution, explains that. But, I still would like to know how old life is according to ID. How old is it? Could you cite some scienfitific research by IDers that says that please?