Intelligent Design in schools.

To my esteemed Thaddaeus. I thank you very much for taking on this debate. You have chosen the side of having ID in schools. Therefore I shall debate against it. I hope that this debate is fun and enjoyable for both. Good luck. Now to my argumentation. "...atheism is essentially a religion, so to allow evolution (which is central to atheism) while denying ID is tantamount to endorsing one religion (atheism) over another, which clearly violates our consitutional prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion and our political principle that the church and state ought to be kept separate." - Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." This according to dictionary.com and it's the first definition found. Look specifically to the first line. It says that it includes the cause which is inclusive of both ID and evolutionary theory. But the second and thirds relate only to ID. Now I believe that you will say that ID doesn't contain these. I disagree. In fact, the logical conclusion of ID is a religion. If we teach about a creator or creators, then it leads to the question of who or what created us. If there is an intelligent designer, then what is the purpose (the third part) of everything being created, and what is the creator like (the second part) All of these are the specific attributes of what religion is defined as. Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to have a purpose for the world. It also doesn't have a nature that is given to it. So we see that your argument about evolutionary theory being a religion is false, and we also see that ID is a religion. So if ID were to be taught in schools, then that would be violating the separation of church and state. Now for your next argument. You say that ID has been accepted by many smart men. I have a couple questions regarding this statement: 1. Which ones? 2. What makes them smart? 3. In what areas are they "smart"? 4. What percentage is many? 5. How many smart men think it isn't valid? All of these are valid questions that must be answered to prove your statement true. I will now go through and discuss these questions proving how that statement is false. 1, 4, and 5, I will group. According to msnbc.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) much of the scientific community disregards ID. They say that no example of irreducible complexity, the basis for ID, exists. Not only this, but when you look at the second page of the article, you see that one of the main backers for ID is in fact Christian. When we look deeper, we find that it is the Christian community backing ID. Surprisingly, most other religions that believe in a supreme being creating the world aren't backing it at all. 2. If most of the scientific community disregard ID, and these are the people who study it and find its merits or faults, then the people who believe in it can't be that smart. 3. Because it is mostly Christian backed, the smart people may be smart, just not in science. They may be very well educated in philosophy, religion, theology, etc..., but not in the areas necessary to prove your point. All of these arguments prove why my opponent is wrong in his statements, and how I am right in mine. Thank you and good luck to you...may God be with you.