What's wrong with presenting opposing theories? Maybe I missed the memo that said the concept of evolution has been proven beyond any doubt and that the subject was closed. Can someone please make sure I get copied on these things from now on?

Seriously, on a fundamental (no pun intended) level, these theories can complement each others' flaws and holes. Too often our highly educated peers in academia grasp on to whatever Occam's Razor pares off and accepts those THEORIES as fact, while rejecting alternate explanations, or even minor alterations of theory.

"...We've had troops in Japan and Germany for over 60 years. Mr. Reid, does that mean we LOST WWII ?!?!?..."

FYI: the production company behind "An Inconvenient Truth" also produced a film about supposed American atrocities in Iraq and a film following Jimmy Carter on his "Peace, Not Apartheid" book tour. Does stink of a conspiracy also? Or is that solely the domain of the vast right wing?

...We've had troops in Japan and Germany for over 60 years. Does that mean we LOST WWII ?!?!?...

The problem with advancing ID as a competing theory is that it's not a theory. Evolution is both robust and falsifiable. It is supported by an ocean of evidence from numerous fields of science: biology, genetics, population genetics, geology, astronomy, physics, archaeology, paleonotology. If the evidence were significantly different, we would have to abandon evoluion.The fact that it's withstood every scientific challenge thrown at it for 150 years speaks to its soundness.

ID has zero evidence in supprt of it's central tenet and it is unfalsifiable. What it's proponents try to do is to poke holes in Darwanism and then say "See...it must be God behind that." This is the "God of the gaps" argument and is bogus logic.

Sorry, that's not how science works. You might as well loudly proclaim that the universe and everything in it was created five minutes ago with all our memories as they now exist. There is exactly as much evidence for that scrap of whimsy as there is for ID.

The bottom line? Start giving equal time to religiously inspired fantasies and you won't have time for real science.

Intelligent Design cannot complement evolution, because the basis behind the theories are diametrically opposed. ID = a creator purposely designed biological processes. Evolution = changes develop gradually in response to environmental factors. Now, we could say that the process of evolution was put into place by a creator. That does not contradict the tenets of evolution, because evolution is not concerned with the origins of the universe.

People can research ID all they like; I don't think anyone would dispute that. And if that research leads to proof of the existence of God, it will be a glorious day for humanity. Until then, however, I don't believe we should change the scientific method to make "complete lack of proof or reasoning" an acceptable criteria for proving a hypothesis.

When will people actually go back and read the scientific method.

Neither ID or Evolution is a scientific theory, they are both philosophical theories on the origin of life.

To have a scientific theory the theory being tested must be, testable verifiable, falsifiable and repeatable.

While both Evolution and ID have some scientific evidence pointing towards them neither can be called in truth science.

The whole point of this movie that scientist should not be discriminated upon because their religious views do not line up with their department.

This article does nothing more than blatantly show Popsci's disregard for science. As well as showing what religion the author has devoted himself to at all cost.

To do research in the Scientific fields you must keep you mind open and look at the facts and examine many different theories to see where the facts lead. Not look through your favorite theory and see what facts it points at. I have read many books on this subject, from both sides. Perhaps you should too before you so hastily spit back out what you were fed in school.

This is not a review of a film but a slanderous attack of a philosophical theory. If you really think ID has no legs to stand on why don't you show the facts supporting both theories. But that really shouldn't happen here, after all this site is supposed to deal with science not and not the debate between two opposing religions.

As intellectually honest people, we must ask ourselves simply: where are the transitionary forms in the fossil record? Not one example of an unsuccessful transitionary form, the basis for evolutionary mutation theory, has ever been documented in the fossil record or elsewhere on Earth. The fact is that Darwinian Evolutionism is a philosophy, not a science, and no matter how many scientists one throws at it, one will never produce a shred of empirical evidence to prove it. I would wager all of my popsci PPX on it. Furthermore, has anyone found an objective study on the weight of the theory, one not tainted by theological considerations or grant money or tenure?

My point is that to dismiss intelligent design solely on the presupposition of either the mutual exclusivity or infallibility of a shaky bit of 18th century whimsical fantasy would sell short both the profoundly complex nature of the universe that defies logic and the definitions of reality in an increasingly "spooky" physical universe.

Ari

Well we seem to establish the definition of evolution is, "...Evolution = changes develop gradually in response to environmental factors..." by dinsy. And Intelligent Design is, "a creator purposely designed biological processes."
So how does this "Intelligent Designer" create living things?
How come we dont see new creatures just "poof" right in front of us? I think that will be the day when evolution is busted. Until then, evolution shall be taught in public schools. Any other theories that based on Judeo-Christian's book of Genesis with a fancy legal name attach to it, shall done in respective place of worship or private homes. Remember people, separation of church and state.
But who's to say evolution is "Someone's" grand scheme of things. Life is dynamic, it always changes. If Intelligent Design were true, how do we explain genetic mutations found in all living things, farm animals/ plants and dogs, which the latter is done by selective breeding over a period of time to create a totally new animal/plant/pet to suit it needs. So far, I haven't heard of any archeologist digging up a pekingese that dates back to the beginning of time.
Since we're (Man) creating new species in cattles, wheats, and dogs.... can we also be called Creators... err... I mean Designers too? Or is this blasphemy? Oh wait its not, because we're discussing Intelligent Design: a scientific theory, and not religion; of course.
Also wanna plugin a NOVA special on this case too. I saw it aired on PBS and it discuss about the recent event where textbooks for ID were distributed and taught in public class in somewhere. And then it became a Federal court case. I got bad memory, but if someone can can find it, watch it. Its quite riveting, like Law and Order: Religion vs.Evolution!

On, "What's wrong with presenting opposing theories?"

A theory needs substantial evidence or evidence to explain some aspect of the natural world backed up by experimentation and test to verify if it have some truth to it.

Intelligent Design doesn't have any experimentation or observations in the natural world done to argue its case. Its just arguing for arguments sake. This doesn't mean it should become a scientific theory.
Otherwise, I'll be studying astrology and craniometry in college.

In high school, which is supposed to be universal education, simple economy suggests that we only spend every student's time on science that is generally applicable and likely to remain valid for much of their life.

We don't talk about cutting-edge science much in high school because it's going to go obsolete very fast. People actively following the field, or doing more specialized research, will want to know, but there is plenty of worthy material to fill a high school science curriculum without delving into even slightly questionable science.

So theories with poor support are not mentioned at all, unless the field is so important that it's worth at least discussing it even if there are no well-established foundations to teach.

This is not suppressing a theory for political purposes, but just because it would be wasting students' time. Would you confuse a history class by introducing Illig's missing time hypothesis?

Then we get to the point that cdesign proponentism not only lacks any sort of observational basis at all, but isn't even well-enough formed to be a theory. The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes testable predictions. In contrast, creationism seems to be a series of attacks on the theory of evolution (and the even nuttier fringe attack the evidence for the fact of historical evolution) combined with the delusion that there is a dichotomy which will have creationism declared the winner if they can but make evolution fail.

That dichotomy is utterly illusory; as the numerous academic endorsements of the Flying Spaghetti Monster make clear, it is possible to dream up theories of speciation at least as well-founded as creationism without leaving the realm of blatant farce. If Darwin's theory of evolution were utterly disproved tomorrow, creationism would still be far from the first choice to replace it.

Teach the debate all you want in civics class; it's an interesting episode in current politics. There simply is no debate over the basic theory of evolution in biology. (Although there is active research and debate on many of the fine details.)

@ Bryan. Fristly, evolution has nothing to say about the origins of life, only about the variety of species; the title of Darwian's book was "On the Origin of Species", not "On the Origin of Life".

Secondly, of course evolution is a testable theory, it would just take a very long time to do so.

@ aryeh5761: Have some links showing transitional fossils, and stop perpetuating that old myth.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm