Here in Australia, one guy in the Senate is trying to bypass a bunch of controls to get intelligent designs on our science curriculum. But the science teachers are saying they’ll refuse to teach it so he doesn’t need to bother. I don’t blame them - they already have enough bullshit to handle with the new outcomes-based education and all. Nobody here seems to have even heard of intelligent design, anyway, so I don’t know where he expects to get his support from.
hijack and probably best for GD but in one sense ID is scientific. It makes two main claims (life is too complicated for it to have arisen by chance and (ii) therefore didn’t). Now the first part can be falsified (and in my opinion will be in the next 50 years) as computer modelling becomes more advanced also and artificial life is created and evolved in vitro. This would then seriously weaken the second part of the claim and remove any scientific claims.
And would you believe anything said by Reg/Peter Vardy ? He is, after all, just a used-car salesman. 
Despite the nationality of Bishop Usher, I’ve never heard of people seriously debating it in Ireland. There must be a few out there but in the media and press they have not made any impact whatsoever.
Schools* do not teach it. Science class teaches Big Bang, evolution etc. Creationism and ID would only come up in discussions about forms of religious beliefs in religion class(yes we have them) or the debating teams etc.
*Well any school I’ve heard of. There may be a private school here and there but again they’ve remained under my radar.
The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has an increasing number of mentions in world-wide press - http://www.venganza.org/index.htm#endorse
One thing that this board has made painfully clear: The people who rip on Intelligent Design, for the most part, don’t have even the vaguest understanding of it. ID is a mainly a philosophy, and most of its adherants, myself included, don’t make any claims to the contrary. But you know what? So is the current theory of evolution. Evolution, as taught today, states quite plainly that life was created by random chance. That’s philosophy, not science. And if we’re allowing thinly-disguised philosophical judgements to be advanced in science class, why shouldn’t we be able to get an opposing view? After all, philosophy by it’s nature doesn’t lend itself to any one “correct” answer.
I think you must mean Biodiversity rather than ‘life’, no? Well, even then, you’d still be wrong.
Funny how ID’ers don’t seem to have even the slightest grasp of Evolution and Natural Selection Theory. 
The Dutch Minister of Education, Culture and Sciences Maria van der Hoeven has mentioned some interest in ID on her weblog. She apparently “doesn’t believe in randomness”. It caused some confusion and debate, but for now it doesn’t look like ID is going to end up in schools here.
Actually, evolution has nothing at all to say about how life was created.
:shrug:
I thought it was a good question. 
So did I. Maybe someone will be along to answer.
Yes, the creation story in the Koran is the same as in the Old Testament (Adam, Eve, Garden of Eden, etc.)
i would imagine that evolution is not taught in schools in Iran or Saudi Arabia, but is probably taught at the University level if the student wishes to pursue a career in the sciences.
I don’t know any answers about Iran (or Saudi Arabia), but a guy named Taner Edis has a number of articles on the phenomeon of creationism in Muslim countries (for example, Cloning Creationism in Turkey). The situation in Turkey is more analogous to that of the U.S.; Iran is an outright theocracy, whereas Turkey is a country with an avowedly secular government and a largely religious population.
One thing that your post makes painfully clear; you don’t have even the vaguest understanding of the theory of evolution. It says nothing, zilch, nada about the creation of life.
That’s abiogenesis, not evolution.
Posts from Diceman, etc., help us to understand why the task of the Straight Dope, as stated in its header, is not only “Fighting Ignorance Since 1973,” but also why “It’s taking longer than we thought.”
Fact is that there’s more nuts in Brazil than we thought. xo, C.
Only of the Freemasons. And he invented 3D glasses.
I might be hijacking my own post. If so, I’m sorry; ignore it.
Diceman, I’m going to first echo (in my unscholarly, non-professional fashion) that I think you’ve got your logic a bit muddled.
First, Evolution is a theory (philosophy) in the same sense that gravity is a theory, that atoms are a theory. That’s not to say that they are not considered to be fact. Am I wrong? When teachers teach gravity, do you want to preface the section with an explication that there could be a higher power that is holding us on earth? Do you want to have a disclaimer when teaching about atoms, that the electrons could be moved by a diety?
Or, would you rather leave it out of science classes and leave it up to the individual to decide the causes unknown?
Second, as has already been stated, evolution doesn’t try to explain the “first cause.” It, from what I understand, supposes a first cause because something doesn’t come from nothing (even for scientists), but evolutionists don’t say what the first cause is. Again, that’s up to anyone to decide, right?
I went to baptist and catholic schools (in the South even!) as a kid and there was never a hesitation to teach evolution (that I remember).
Evolution is testable and falsifiable. Intelligent design is not. That’s what makes evolution science and ID not science. The fundamental idea of evolution, that species evolve through mutation and selection, has stood up to a hundred plus years of testing by biologists in the lab and in the field. ID has never been tested once by anybody.
Not only does it not say anything about the creation of life, it also doesn’t say that species evolved through random chance. Evolution is not a random process.
Wha? What is the distinction in your mind? “The Earth orbits the Sun”—is that statement philosophy too? “Because of continental drift, India, which used to be attached to Africa, is now attached to Asia.” Also philosophy?
Evolution is testable and falsifiable. Intelligent design is not.
Yes, ID is not a theory as some claim, it is an attempt to falsify the Theory of Evolution. ID cannot be falsified. They first claim that the eye is too complex to have evolved naturally, therefore it was designed. Then that is shown to be false - there are plausible ways for the eye to have evolved. But then it’s the bacteria flagellum - and again it’s shown that it could have evolved. Answer that, and now it’s an objection about blood clotting proteins. It’s just the old god-of-the-gaps idea warmed over with some scholarly-sounding work by Behe and Dembski.
And the idea that it doesn’t necessarily say “God” did it, but just some intelligence. Jon Stewart last week pointed out that it’s not God they’re saying did it, just someone with the basic skillset to create an entire functioning universe.
Another thing I’ve noticed about the ID movement - how the ideas of Behe and Dembski, which supposedly it’s built around, contrast with what the ID-expounding man on the street seems to think it says. Behe, and I think Dembski too, agree that the Earth is billions of years old, that life arose billions of years ago, that all life descended from a common ancestor, and that in particular humans and other apes share a common ancestor. Most people who say they believe ID seem to be of the sort who just can’t accept that we evolved from apes.