Time to bring up our favorite subject again.

Those sneaky creationists.

This is the thing. It is clear that Congress can make no law establishing a religion. But how is suggesting a theory that states "materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God, ”(Intelligent Designer), establishing a religion? It just isn't.

Now, replacing evolutionary materials, I completely disagree with. But none of my evolutionary friends have convinced me that other theories of design shouldn't be looked at in the classroom.

Just saying, "it isn't science" doesn't do it for me. Just saying it can't be "falisfied" doesn't do it for me. You are judging what is a standard for science by a test created by a man. I think it is important for kids to know what so many people believe. And, simply speaking, if some things are too complex to be explained any other way, and scientists theorize about how that is accomplished. This is a theory.

Now you can make the case that someone could just make any old thing up as a theory. But the difference is many scientists and other intelligent educated people have valid scientific findings that prove that, at the least, there are things too complex to be explained any other way than an intelligent design.

But I am no expert, and can still be convinced either way. If you would like to read a discussion between those involved on both sides, Natural History Magazine has this excellent debate.