Meh... I still agree with evolution...I just don't see a problem with a teacher being honest and saying evolution doesn't have an explanation for the original creations of life and saying, some people answer that question with the belief of an intelligent creator. I'm definitely not a 6000-year-old-Earth creationist, haha. Genetic drift and natural selection don't justify the first beginnings of life. It's false for evolutionists to say, "we can explain how life was created"...they have a good explanation for how life has changed over time. But it stops there. Biopoesis has a theory on the creation of life, but I don't EVER recall being taught that in school... I had to go dig that one up on my own, and it's never the subject of the debate.
I don't see evolution and a theory of an intelligent creator being opposite or opposed of each other. My source for that isn't, and never has been the Discovery Institute, who are evidently partisan fucks, haha.
It's alllllllllllll good sista.
Evolution, in and of itself, never attempts to explain our origins. It can only explain change over time from existing life and highlight it accordingly.
THAT SAID, there is a restrictive arm in place, as it pertains to origins...in the scientific arena in schools...on purpose. Science has a standard that demands that theories, that evolve into hypothesis, have to be testable explanations within the frame work of a natural world. The super natural negates verifications or observation using scientific methodology...so it's not fair to make an exception of demands for something that wants to be legitimized within scientific parameters.
I'm not against ID in and of itself...origins is a heated subject of debate. I'm against them wanting to use science to legitimize a philosophical concept, without also using the methodology that establishes many scientific hypothesis.
If you're going to postulate that origins were divinely instituted, and do so as acceptable within a scientific framework, then all scientific criteria has to be met, not just a little or some. Otherwise you're already starting off on a disingenuous foot.
I do, however, have no issue with philosophical debate...and if it was framed as such, instead of trying to attach itself as a scientific endeavor, when methodology is being side stepped or dismissed that doesn't favor the results desired...I'd have no issue at all.
Yup...I pooped.
