> > And I have issue with those who present
> >evolution as the only "right" way to think. I
> >see nothing wrong with explaining both views and
> >allowing children to form their own opinions over
> >time.
>
> The problem is, again, one is science, and one isn't. Teach ID in a class called "Christian Theology" and you're cool. Teach it in "Biology" and I take extreme exception to that.

The other problem is that science isn't something that it makes any sense to "allow... children to form their own opinions" about. Science is not a subjective phenomenon any more than math is. Should we also allow children to form their own opinions about whether or not 2+2=4? If some of the kids in the class say 2+2=5, should that be nurtured as a "different but equally valid viewpoint?"

Trick question! Science would say "yes, if they can provide evidence for it." Hence, the proof! Ask the students to demonstrate that 2+2 does, in fact, equal 5. If they succeed, they will not be "shunned by the math illuminati," they'll be well on their collective way to a Nobel Prize.

This differs from Intelligent Design in no way whatsoever. You insist that children should be taught alternatives to established scientific theories. If sufficient evidence is provided, I am right there with you on that one, believe me. I have no particular stake in evolution vs. ID whatsoever; I would prefer that my children are taught whichever one has been demontrated to be correct. If Intelligent Design is "just as correct" as evolution, I am willing to review and consider your evidence. As are scientists the world over. As is the Nobel committee.

> Shifting gears a bit, I know one common objection to the rejection of the supernatural by science is the suggestion that the only things knowable can be known by science, and thus the supernatural either does not exist or isn't knowable.

Well, yes and no. The trouble is, the instant it's understood, it's natural. "Supernatural," by definition, means "operating outside the known laws of nature." Therefore, by definition, science can never support supernatural phenomena; if it's gained a body of evidence to support it, it's become a natural phenomenon.

> Is it possible that supernatural explanations outside of science may be the correct explanations? Sure, it might be that way.

I guess this is as good a time as any to interject my old friend Occam's Razor. In a nutshell, it says that, of competing theories, the simplest is most likely to be correct. How do you decide on the "simplest" theory? Well, in the macroscopic case, it would be the one that requires the fewest deviations from known natural laws and observed evidence.