I've no idea what his Doctor will be like.

That's the key, isn't it? I mean, they wrote CE's doctor as sexual, and CE did a fine job with it. And by fine, I certainly mean fine.

DT can be great and not sexy.

This was in the Washington Post this morning.

WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."

The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Here's my question, and I apologize if I'm oversimplifying...

Is this whole theory based on the thought that if it's too complex to figure out right now, we should just chalk it up to "god did it"?

Or is it, "god did it until we figure out something else."?

Is god always the unknown variable? If so, are we supposed to jus take "god" as the answer and move onto something else?

Anyone know anything about this theory?

Is god always the unknown variable?

"Bobby, who took the last piece of chocolate cake?"
"God did it."

The New Yorker has a recent piece on what Intelligent Design is - it's not too long: [link]

Proponents of intelligent design claim that certain structures, like the eye, are too complicated to have evolved from simpler structures. If you take away one component of the eye, and the whole eye stops functioning. No intermediate stages are possible. Therefore, the eye must have been created by an intelligent entity.

Frank, we have comcast too, (digital) and it is channel 67, I believe.

I thought Intelligent Design was a very clever and marketable name for Creationism.

Of course there are alternatives to both ID and evolution - for example The Flying Spaghetti Monster

There's a good article on the Discovery Institute (the coiners of the phrase "intelligent design," and the most prominent lobbyers for including it in public education) here.

Scientific American also published one a few months ago, but I think it's been long enough that it's not free anymore. I'll link if I can find it.

Well, the proponents of I.D. tend to claim that they make no opinion on who/what the designer might be and therefore does not relate to religion.

My feeling is that I.D. is simply not science. You can't throw in an unfalsifiable supernatural force/entity into a theory and claim it is scientific theory.

Besides, there are explanations of how complex mechanisms in cells (the primary argument of I.D.) could have evolved. One has to bear in mind that complex cells took some two billion years to evolve, it's not like this complexity happened overnight.