James, Don, etc., I haven't been avoiding your questions, just too busy at work to answer them. But let me take a stab at a few thoughts kicking around in my noggin. I'll start with a disclaimer. While I too have a Computer Science degree, I do not consider myself a scientist any more than someone with a Political Science degree. I was educated at San Diego State, and my major was taught in the Math dept. Consequently, I have no more formal training in biology or biochemistry or zoology than pretty much anyone else who graduated from college. But I'd like to weigh in nonetheless with hopefully a reasoned response... So far in all the exchanges, I've only heard (approx.) four arguments for teaching ID opposite Evolution in school science class from the list proponents: 1. Evolution is mathematically/statistically improbable 2. The fossil record is incomplete and inconclusive 3. Evolutionists have no explanation for how things got started 4. Many Evolutionists are deceitful liars willfully misleading impressionable minds towards aethism (taking a lot of liberties with Mr. Cobb's last post, but that seems to be his main point anyway). But so far I've not heard, nor do I have any idea, what you would actually propose BE taught in an entire semester of a HS biology class. All I can think of could be covered in about the time it takes to, oh, soft-boil an egg, and would consist pretty much of the following: "Class, some (however few) mathematicians feel like evolutionary development is way beyond statistical reason to take us from chemical soup to nutty hot fudge sundaes. Therefore, be aware that some feel we were either created by 'God', be (s)he Jesus, Buddah, Allah, the Dali Lama, Mother Earth, Mother Goose, or the Great Pumpkin, in our current form, or we were 'planted' here by an advanced alien race from who knows where, or the seeds of life landed here piggyback on a comet or meteorite. Never mind where the seeds came from, or what the parents of such a seminal life-force looked like, or how it got started in the first place (or how God got started, etc.). "Furthermore, the fossil record is sparse, and some take that to mean that since we have apparent holes in the fossil record, this is proof positive that creatures do not evolve across specieal (sp) boundaries, but said God or alien benefactor created each "kind" of animal and plant on Earth (and anywhere else we might find life in the universe). "Lastly, some biology textbooks have erroneous information in them, and some have consequently concluded that it was deliberately placed there as a vast conspiracy to deceive and corrupt the minds of our youth." And that, ladies and gentlemen, is pretty much it. What else is there to tell? What am I missing? Perhaps, after all, this Buttars' hoo-haw is, to paraphrase Shakespeare, much ado about nothing...? Of greater concern to me however is the idea that, if we conclude that all this evolutionary science is too improbable (statistically speaking) or unlikely (abiogenisis), what are we to do about it -- drop the whole thing and quit trying to puzzle it out? Quit looking? Stop thinking? "Must be God; let's quit at that and call it good." That sounds like a far more tragic consequence to me. Science is all about finding answers to questions. When we throw in the towel, for whatever reason, we all lose. If we are content to never find life's beginnings, or understand how all life forms are interconnected, but are rather content to keep pushing back the thought to another world or another time, or blame it on an unknowable, infitine being, we cease to be God's children, who are, by definition, embued with insatiable curiosity, filled with a longing to look up and comprehend, to ponder the imponderable... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com