This user has not filled out their profile yet.

Polldaddy
Check out Polldaddy, the most easy-to-use survey software around. Start creating beautiful online surveys today.

Create an Online Survey

Do you think the theory of Intelligent Design should be taught in our education system?

Posted 9 years.

61 Comments

  • Harry Hoedown - 9 years ago

    Absolutely not. First off there's no "theory of intelligent design". There's not even a "hypothesis of intelligent design". There's an ignorant propagandist attempting to produce a valid complaint about being laughed out of a place where his anti-scientific nonsense has no standing, but that's about it. Secondly, if we teach that maybe Goddidit, then we should also teach the possibility that Xenu did it, or that Elohim did it. And this has no place in the public school system, or in any serious academic institution.

  • Brian - 9 years ago

    Daniel, that article is grossly misinformed.

    Black holes: A "black hole" is a local solution to Einstein's field equations in vacuum, which includes singular curvature in some world-line. The curvature has a critical distance inside of which the curvature of space causes all light cones to be bent inward towards the singularity, thus light inside of this radius can never reach anyone outside of this radius, and it is completely causally separated from our universe. We have evidence for their existence in that we see binary star systems where a star is orbiting a body with an extremely large amount of mass (the mass of the second body can be deduced from the orbital radius and period of the star, to within an order of magnitude), in fact large enough mass that neutron Fermi pressure would be insufficient to support it against it's own gravity. We also see the x-rays emitted as charged particles are drawn in.
    Inside a black hole is also described just fine by the Einstein field equations, and the interpretation of the solution does sound bizarre (the radial direction becomes timelike, and time acts more like a spatial direction) this is not fanciful guesses, the metric inside is well-defined everywhere but the origin, and this is what it says! (the sign of the time coordinate goes from + to -, and the radial sign goes from - to +) This is not supernatural BS, this is MATHEMATICS.

    The possibility of other universes is hardly supernatural. GR treats the universe as one giant connected 4-manifold. Once you think of the universe this way, it's actually natural to speculate that other manifolds may exist disconnected from ours. The other way this idea comes up is one way to interpret the quantum mechanical idea of a linear superposition of states.

    Alternate universes aren't really scientifically studied in great detail in physics (I know because I'm a physicist), because they don't make predictions unique from the theories we have now, they merely are an aid to think about the meanings of the laws of physics that we do know. It's philosophy more than anything else. Although, I should point out that ways to test many universes have been proposed (I don't have the reference handy, but it was speculated that a quantum computer could provide evidence. It's not well supported now, but the idea has some merit).

    Also the idea at the end that everything has a source is old, tired, and wrong. Quantum mechanics teaches us that it's entirely possible for things to happen (like a big bang) to happen purely because they can (see, e.g., alpha and beta decay). Not terribly likely, but it only has to happen once for the universe to be here.

    The article, as a whole, fails to make a point, really. Since it's primarily arguing against issues that are philosophy of science. Sure, scientists like to speculate about such things, but they admit themselves that that's not science, and such speculations are not what they do as part of their work as scientists. For example, Stephen Hawking has done some speculative writing about the origin and nature of the universe, and has thought a lot about it, but that's not his scientific work, his scientific work (Hawking radiation, Black Hole Entropy) has been very well-motivated and is all (eventually) verifiable in some way or another.

    There's more I can add, but I'm getting bored of writing on a dead poll's comments anyway...

  • Mark Hansen - 9 years ago

    Daniel, you might try looking at what a scientific theory really is. It is far different from the commonly believed "guess" which cdesign proponentists would have you believe. And you might want to check out a few more of his assertions before concluding that the article proves anything. Try black holes for starters.
    Congratulations for being #920. Who knows, the "ayes" may get to 1,000 before the "nays" make 500,000.

  • Daniel Montgomery - 9 years ago

    http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Theory-of-God&id=157268
    98% percent of you are grossly misinformed. And this article proves that creationism is a far more viable theory than evolutionism.

  • Barry Desborough - 9 years ago

    Even Dembski says ID should not be taught in schools. He recognises its lack of content.

  • Tom S. Fox - 9 years ago

    EPIC FAIL!!!

  • Adammair - 9 years ago

    Intelligent Design isn't a theory of course but still isn't it telling that only 915 people support it? You can cry all you want about the pro-science crowd but if you can't find more than 915 people to support ID doesn't that pretty much debunk the whole "self-evident creator" nonsense?

  • DVSB - 9 years ago

    @Jason:

    "This poll just shows the mentality of the anti-ID crowd. They obviously have cheated (419,000+ "no" votes - yeah, right!) to manipulate the poll."

    But surely, just because something is misleading and riddled with inaccuracy isn't a reason to not promote it. I thought that was Stein's whole message?

  • Jay - 9 years ago

    You know, watching the Expelled team at work is fascinating; just when I think that they've hit rock bottom they manage to wow me with another piece of inanity. I guess the downside to a poll is that sometimes people don't fall in line with what you want them to do....and sorry Jason, if you want to see cheating and manipulation of facts I wouldn't worry about this poll - I would check out what the saintly producers of Expelled have been doing over at www.expelledexposed.com

  • Joel - 9 years ago

    "This poll just shows the mentality of the anti-ID crowd. They obviously have cheated (419,000+ "no" votes - yeah, right!) to manipulate the poll."

    No, the poll was intelligently voted.

  • Kile - 9 years ago

    Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. No biologist would support teaching it as such in class. ID is just a big case of collective denial from bible literalists who find that the real world (natural selection, the theory of evolution, ect.) conflicts with their beliefs.

  • Maezeppa - 9 years ago

    The discipline of science basically doesn't permit entertaining nonevidentiary explanations that way. Science can't ever prove or disprove God so religious people ought to just rely on their faith.

  • Aegis - 9 years ago

    "Seeing that the people who created the poll are advocating the teaching of creationism as a viable alternative to ETNS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND UNIVERSITIES"...

    Sorry about that omission.

  • Aegis - 9 years ago

    DaddyMonkey, the poll was created by the 'Expelled' folks, hopefully to bolster their position. It failed so horribly that they pulled the poll from their site.

    Seeing that the people who created the poll are advocating the teaching of creationism as a viable alternative to ETNS, you can safely vote "no".

  • Phosphoros - 9 years ago

    RESPUESTA A LAS MENTIRAS CREACIONISTAS:
    Los Creacionistas, tienen una combinación muy especial de Ignorancia y Pedantería que los caracteriza, diferenciándolos de otro tipo de Pseudocientíficos. Primero mezclan todo, como si fuera lo mismo: Big-bang, Abiogénesis y Evolución Biológica. Después, pasan de un supuesto Pseudocientífico a otro supuesto Pseudocientífico, y finalmente transliteran textos científicos, sacándolos de contexto, para que digan lo que ellos quieren que digan. Por supuesto pensando que todas esas tácticas de tergiversación son VERDADERA CIENCIA.
    Tanto el Big-bang, como la Abiogénesis y la Evolución Biológica son cosas completamente distintas. La Primera y la Tercera son Teorías Científicas debidamente comprobadas, en cambio, la segunda está en fase de Hipótesis Científica, con un conjunto de Hipótesis Rivales compitiendo entre sí. El único hilo conductor que tienen es la Filosofía de la que son parte: Naturalista, Materialista, Mecanicista y Transformista. Pero, por supuesto, eso los creacionistas NO lo saben, o lo ignoran deliberadamente. Dudo mucho que lo enseñen en la Iglesia, en las Escuelas Dominicales, o en las Universidades Creacionistas.
    La Teoría del Big-bang tiene las siguientes evidencias: Homogeneidad a Larga Escala, Diagrama de Hubble (Expansión del Universo), Fondo Cósmico de Radiación de Microondas, Fluctuaciones en el Fondo Cósmico de Radiación de Microondas, Abundancia de Elementos Primordiales Livianos, Estructura a Larga Escala del Universo, Edad de las Estrellas, Tiempo de dilatación en el Brillo de las Supernovas, Evolución y Distribución de las Galaxias, etc.... Presentando los siguientes problemas: Horizonte, Planitud, Edad de los Cúmulos Globulares, Monopolos Magnéticos, Materia Oscura y Energía Oscura, etc...
    La Hipótesis Abiogenética trata de explicar el origen de los organismos a partir de la materia no viva, y tiene los siguientes modelos (en ninguno de los cuales hace falta un “Ser Sobrenatural”): Urey-Miller, Fox, Eigen, Wachstershauser, Mundo de ARN, Mundo de Hierro-Sulfuro, Burbujas, Autocatálisis, Arcillas, Gold, Mundo de Lípidos, Polifosfatos, Ecopoiesis, Panspermia, etc…Muy pocos científicos, como Nasif Nahle del Biology Cabinet Organization, piensan que la Abiogénesis y la Evolución son lo mismo, ya que consideran que la primera involucraría a la Evolución Química. Aunque los Creacionistas “Científicos” y los Creacionistas del Diseño Inteligente, insistan NO tiene nada que ver con la Generación Espontánea de la antigüedad.
    Por más que los Pseudocientíficos Creacionistas digan lo contrario, el lento ritmo de cambio geológico no pudo haber bastado para producir la actual diversidad de organismos en un lapso entre 6.000 y 10.000 años, (NO importa cuantos “tipos creados” o baramines, se inventen) la edad de la tierra y el universo según muchos Creacionistas “Científicos” (Witcomb & Morris, 1961; Morris, 1970-1974; Barnes, 1971; Humphreys, 1989; etc…), según sean la supuesta “antigüedad aparente” que el dios Judéo-Cristiano le dio al universo, supuestos defectos en la datación radiométrica, la taza de crecimiento de la población mundial, el supuesto decaimiento del campo magnético terrestre, la supuesta disminución en la velocidad de la luz, la deposición de los sedimentos oceánicos y la geología “diluvial” con el imposible ordenamiento hidrodinámico de los fósiles, etc… Las técnicas de la geología moderna para estimar las edades confirman que la edad de la Tierra oscila entre los 4.200-4.600 millones de años de antigüedad, tiempo más que suficiente para abarcar el desarrollo de las modernas formas de vida a partir de ancestros primitivos. Según Schopf (1968), los fósiles más antiguos de organismos que presentan una estructura celular aparente se han datado en 3200 millones de años y fueron encontrados en la Serie Onwerwacht de Sudáfrica, consistente en barras (del tipo de las bacterias) y esferoides (del tipo de las cianofitas) carbonosas que se conservan en sílex y otras

  • Phosphoros - 9 years ago

    RESPUESTA A LAS MENTIRAS CREACIONISTAS:
    Los Creacionistas, tienen una combinación muy especial de Ignorancia y Pedantería que los caracteriza, diferenciándolos de otro tipo de Pseudocientíficos. Primero mezclan todo, como si fuera lo mismo: Big-bang, Abiogénesis y Evolución Biológica. Después, pasan de un supuesto Pseudocientífico a otro supuesto Pseudocientífico, y finalmente transliteran textos científicos, sacándolos de contexto, para que digan lo que ellos quieren que digan. Por supuesto pensando que todas esas tácticas de tergiversación son VERDADERA CIENCIA.
    Tanto el Big-bang, como la Abiogénesis y la Evolución Biológica son cosas completamente distintas. La Primera y la Tercera son Teorías Científicas debidamente comprobadas, en cambio, la segunda está en fase de Hipótesis Científica, con un conjunto de Hipótesis Rivales compitiendo entre sí. El único hilo conductor que tienen es la Filosofía de la que son parte: Naturalista, Materialista, Mecanicista y Transformista. Pero, por supuesto, eso los creacionistas NO lo saben, o lo ignoran deliberadamente. Dudo mucho que lo enseñen en la Iglesia, en las Escuelas Dominicales, o en las Universidades Creacionistas.
    La Teoría del Big-bang tiene las siguientes evidencias: Homogeneidad a Larga Escala, Diagrama de Hubble (Expansión del Universo), Fondo Cósmico de Radiación de Microondas, Fluctuaciones en el Fondo Cósmico de Radiación de Microondas, Abundancia de Elementos Primordiales Livianos, Estructura a Larga Escala del Universo, Edad de las Estrellas, Tiempo de dilatación en el Brillo de las Supernovas, Evolución y Distribución de las Galaxias, etc.... Presentando los siguientes problemas: Horizonte, Planitud, Edad de los Cúmulos Globulares, Monopolos Magnéticos, Materia Oscura y Energía Oscura, etc...
    La Hipótesis Abiogenética trata de explicar el origen de los organismos a partir de la materia no viva, y tiene los siguientes modelos (en ninguno de los cuales hace falta un “Ser Sobrenatural”): Urey-Miller, Fox, Eigen, Wachstershauser, Mundo de ARN, Mundo de Hierro-Sulfuro, Burbujas, Autocatálisis, Arcillas, Gold, Mundo de Lípidos, Polifosfatos, Ecopoiesis, Panspermia, etc…Muy pocos científicos, como Nasif Nahle del Biology Cabinet Organization, piensan que la Abiogénesis y la Evolución son lo mismo, ya que consideran que la primera involucraría a la Evolución Química. Aunque los Creacionistas “Científicos” y los Creacionistas del Diseño Inteligente, insistan NO tiene nada que ver con la Generación Espontánea de la antigüedad.
    Por más que los Pseudocientíficos Creacionistas digan lo contrario, el lento ritmo de cambio geológico no pudo haber bastado para producir la actual diversidad de organismos en un lapso entre 6.000 y 10.000 años, (NO importa cuantos “tipos creados” o baramines, se inventen) la edad de la tierra y el universo según muchos Creacionistas “Científicos” (Witcomb & Morris, 1961; Morris, 1970-1974; Barnes, 1971; Humphreys, 1989; etc…), según sean la supuesta “antigüedad aparente” que el dios Judéo-Cristiano le dio al universo, supuestos defectos en la datación radiométrica, la taza de crecimiento de la población mundial, el supuesto decaimiento del campo magnético terrestre, la supuesta disminución en la velocidad de la luz, la deposición de los sedimentos oceánicos y la geología “diluvial” con el imposible ordenamiento hidrodinámico de los fósiles, etc… Las técnicas de la geología moderna para estimar las edades confirman que la edad de la Tierra oscila entre los 4.200-4.600 millones de años de antigüedad, tiempo más que suficiente para abarcar el desarrollo de las modernas formas de vida a partir de ancestros primitivos. Según Schopf (1968), los fósiles más antiguos de organismos que presentan una estructura celular aparente se han datado en 3200 millones de años y fueron encontrados en la Serie Onwerwacht de Sudáfrica, consistente en barras (del tipo de las bacterias) y esferoides (del tipo de las cianofitas) carbonosas que se conservan en sílex y otras

  • Bing McGhandi - 9 years ago

    Haha. You suck.

    HJ

  • Brango - 9 years ago

    I'd like to ask the ID gathering (not really a crowd) which they think is the larger; the size of our Solar System in relation to the Universe, or the size of your Yes Vote in relation to the margin of error in a Poll?

    See... at least it's larger than 'something'!

  • DaddyMonkey - 9 years ago

    The poll is meaningless. Should ID be taught in our "education system"? Public schools? Private? Define "our" in this context. Speaking of contexts, where and how should it be taught within this amorphous "education system"? had the question been phrased "Should the theory of ID be taught in the science classes of our public schools?" then my answer would be no. In a comparative theology class? Sure. In a private school? Sure. This question is so broad it holds absolutely no meaning. I didn't vote.

  • Senga - 9 years ago

    As a friend of mine said "intelligent design" is an oxymoron. It's a shame the original poll was offloaded, just goes to show what moral cowards those people are.

  • Paul - 9 years ago

    Intelligent Design is just another word for "creationism." We all know it, nobody's being fooled by it, and if you try to teach it in the public school science classroom, you SHOULD face critical scrutiny.

    If you can propose a means of testing for Intelligent Design by the scientific method, I'll take you seriously. Until then, you're a kook.

  • Annie Hall - 9 years ago

    Looking back at my comment, I think that the term "failed hypotheses" should be changed to "failed supposition".

  • Annie Hall - 9 years ago

    Intelligent Design is the antithesis of intelligence. It is a failed hypotheses not a failed theory. It never has been, and never will be, embraced by scientific theory because it totally incapable of being resolved through scientific method.

  • Angel Rose Young - 9 years ago

    Robert Green Ingersoll wanted just one fact. Just one fact for charity. Not a reverberation of ancient philosophy, but a today's fact. Just one fact. That's all. Just one.

    Just one fact. You don't have one, do you?

  • bassmanpete - 9 years ago

    I'm a real No too, #420,150. The ID crowd (what, only 906 of them!) don't seem to realise that they're making the whole of the USA look stupid to the enlightened parts of the world. America the world's greatest nation? Yeah, right!

  • eijkaibjc - 9 years ago

    If ID is not a theory because it cannot be disproved.

  • clued - 9 years ago

    Intelligent Design is so brain-dead that many people from around the world voted it down. The numbers don't surprise me.

  • Onyt Ellicciop - 9 years ago

    I'm so glad the no's have it by an astronomical margin. ID is not a scientific theory. It should never be taught in public schools.

  • Sealy - 9 years ago

    Sure- you can teach religion in my school, as long as I can teach evolution in your church=)

  • ealie - 9 years ago

    Sure you can teach your religion in my school as long as I can teach evolution in your church!

  • Aegis - 9 years ago

    Not to argue from authority, but in a nation where 80% claim to be some form of christian followers, only 906 positive respondents versus a HALF MILLION respondents from the opposition. It seems that Ben, Mark and company have vastly overestimated the gullibility of the average christian theist, and that is a tough thing to do.

    These numbers were not pulled from an atheist site; the numbers were tallied from the "Expelled" movie site itself.

    This is one of the most resounding defeats since Darwin trumped Paley over a century ago.

  • MarkP - 9 years ago

    ID is not even a theory... saying "it's too complex!" is not a theory... complaining that Darwinianism doesn't explain gravity is not a theory... I hope the ID movement soon fades into the obscurity it so deserves.

  • AndyD - 9 years ago

    Ben Stein says "science leads to killing"

    Ben Stein also says "Intelligent Design IS science!"

    Why does Ben want us to teach killing in school?

    Jason, I don't know how the poll attracted such a large anti-ID vote, so I guess God did it.

  • Mark H - 9 years ago

    Jason, if it is so obvious that the anti-ID crowd have cheated, could you please enlighten the ones of us that don't know how it was done? With a bit of evidence beyond "yeah, right!" if you please.

  • Alex - 9 years ago

    I'm also a real "no" vote.

    What amazes me is the intellectual dishonesty characteristic of the whole ID / creationist movement. Joseph Goebels would have been so proud of the whole bunch of them.

  • John - 9 years ago

    Dream on Jason. The only cheaters and liars are the fundies you support.

    www.expelledexposed.com

  • stoni - 9 years ago

    funny.^^ ID/creationism is bollocks. just watch some interviews stein gave to promote "expelled!"... they don't have a clue and are spouting BS 24/7. teach your kids real sience. make them smart and tolerant, that's the only way this world will become a better place. the rest... well, i'll buy them their seats on the rapture bus. morons. btw, poll's f00kin hilarious. xD

  • marko - 9 years ago

    Sorry Jason-Man...add another "real" no to the count. I know it hurts, but at some point you gotta quit making excuses and blaming your ID problems on "cheaters". There's no way to ask this question to any random sample in the U.S. and "win". ID's done, it will just take a while longer to finish flushing it from the culture and a few stubborn holdouts.

  • Ylooshi - 9 years ago

    And Jason is demonstrative of the credulous nature of the religious who begin with a pre-conceived notion and wish only to accept that data which fits that notion's conclusion.

    -the 419,576th "no" vote

  • Jason - 9 years ago

    This poll just shows the mentality of the anti-ID crowd. They obviously have cheated (419,000+ "no" votes - yeah, right!) to manipulate the poll.

  • Peter - 9 years ago

    I cant believe in 2008 we even have to talk about something as ridiculous as ID. Nobody talks about Thor seriously anymore now do they?

  • Richard Wolford - 9 years ago

    ID is such a joke. Why can't these people simply accept their inner fish? Only science is taught in science classes, not religious nonsense. But I guess I can't blame these people; after all, their antics leading up to and after the release of this movie show they're not too bright. They stole music, they stole a very nice Harvard video (and lied about it...looking at you Billy Dumbski), and they distorted everything that the real scientists said (Myers and Dawkins).

    Science is hard...poof goddidit is easy.

  • George Miller - 9 years ago

    I love it - 98% NO! The poll has been such a disaster that they've removed it from their MySpace page!

  • Evolved - 9 years ago

    Intelligent design is just creationism repackaged (i.e. with references to god removed) in a cynical attempt to circumvent the various court rulings against the teaching of religious concepts in public schools. It was exposed in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, where ID was ruled as "not science" by a Bush-appointed conservative judge, and will fail elsewhere too ... the Hollywood tactics of its supporters notwithstanding.

  • Billy Bhuna - 9 years ago

    Sure, go ahead and teach this as science. Why not add phrenology and phlogistonic theory while you're at it? Just remember Jesus wants you all to be ill educated and obese, then the Chinese can rule the world. MUHAHAHAHA

  • EdSG - 9 years ago

    When they come up with a *Scientific Theory* of Intelligent Design, maybe "Big Science" will start taking them seriously

  • Mary A. - 9 years ago

    No harm in teaching about "intelligent design" in the sense of telling students it's something some people believe in, e.g. in a religious education class. But should teachers stand up and tell their students it's true? Of course not. In any case, you couldn't teach it in a properly-taught science class, except as an example of a failed theory, because an averagely intelligent group of averagely intelligent 12yos could see why it's not a theory consistent with observed facts.

  • Nana - 9 years ago

    A silly poll for a silly movie. Really, Ben Stein, you don't believe Intelligent Design is a scientific theory, do you? Really?

  • Quidam - 9 years ago

    >ThirdMonkeyApr 25, 2008 8:04pm ET
    >But Mr. Stein, the Intellegent Design "theory" of the origin of species doesn't explain how planets stay in their orbits. Or does it? ID "scientists" have yet to produce an actual formal definition for the "theory" so I guess it could explain anything that you want it to.

    Sure it does: http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/9141/bensteinastronomyly8.jpg

    (the angels are invisible and can't be disproved by Darwinists who won't bekieve in anything thay can't see)

  • Pastor Bob - 9 years ago

    mmmmm that little Bobby was SOOO fine!!!!

  • Pastor Bob - 9 years ago

    The Lord givith, the Lord taketh.
    Praise all that HE has given us!!

    Bless you Ben Stein for performing the Lord's work!
    Hold on little Bobby, I'll be back after I post this review of Expelled...
    Yummy.

    P.S. Praise the Lord.

  • Dave K. Welch - 9 years ago

    The 'intelligent design' crowd...(..heh...well given the results of the poll it's hard to call that a crowd but...) they pander to the unwitting with their dishonest attempt to make it look like there are options to the theory of evolution. It is reasonable for someone not aware of the situation to think that, yes, it's only fair that you present all sides of a debate and let me decide what is right and what is wrong. But there is no such debate. What is the theory of evolution? It's the best interpretation of the evidence we have available to us as to how we have evolved. It presents a point of view that has withstood scientific scrutiny for 150 years. The notion of ID (and that's barely what it is) is not even a theory, let alone a viable option to the juggernaut that is big E Evolution. What we have here with the degradation to man's spirit that is Ben Steins legacy is an attempt to dumb mankind back down to the god fearing ape's we evolved from.

  • Kirk - 9 years ago

    If my 10 year old knows its BS you'd think the creationists would know that as well. Morons.

  • bipolar2 - 9 years ago

    ** no self-respecting ape is religious **

    The falsity of 'intelligent design' is proved by the existence of those who believe in it.

    bipolar2

  • Jeremiah H. - 9 years ago

    What is it? There isn't a theory of Intelligent Design as far as I know. I've heard a lot of anti-science propaganda but never a theory that supports an alternative view.

  • Spocko - 9 years ago

    Sure go ahead and teach it - as long as it's in the same class as astrology!

  • Dennis N - 9 years ago

    Sure, teach ID in class and not evolution, but then what do you DO for the other 179.9 days of class? I don't know what kids would benefit from a lesson plan of "goddidit".

  • ThirdMonkey - 9 years ago

    But Mr. Stein, the Intellegent Design "theory" of the origin of species doesn't explain how planets stay in their orbits. Or does it? ID "scientists" have yet to produce an actual formal definition for the "theory" so I guess it could explain anything that you want it to.

  • Kitty - 9 years ago

    Only in America!
    Just as the rest of the white, western world emerges from the dark ages of Christian domination American loonies decide to make a lunatic fringe movie to tell us all about how God made everything in 6 days! Oh, and Darwin was a Nazi.
    Good for you. I hope it makes you very happy.

  • blf - 9 years ago

    WHAT "Theory of Intelligent Deisgn"?
    Who postulated it?
    When?
    How many tests of the idea have been done?
    What are some predictions it has made?
    How could it falseified?
    Does it have Precambian Rabbits?

  • MikeD - 9 years ago

    This is a pretty meaningless poll, since there IS no "Theory of Intelligent Design". I'm voting a big NO on this.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment