The Science of Origins

I'm not very knowledgeable about the science behind the theory of Intelligent Design. It's been a topic of discussion at our house as a result of the recent court decision. I understand the logic behind his decision.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones characterized the issue in this manner:

[The school board's disclaimer] singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere.

I think he makes some great points. Especially his evaluation of the "end around" ploy from the Creationists. My question is this. "How much science is required for a theory to be classified as scientific?" Seems to me that both theories could be considered scientific or perhaps neither should be. Intelligent Design obviously implies a Creator, though not by name. But evolution obviously is intended to exclude a Creator. I would like for the theists and the atheists to focus on the science involved in each theory and perhaps then education could gain a clearer understanding of what the scientific community understands and the remaining mystery of the things that we, as yet, don't understand.

that's just my view from here...

Read more on the article from MSNBC...