You have a rather odd attitude to evolution/science okcitykid. I'll tell you the sad thing.....is that religion feebly claims fact. Science claims theory.
a. Its not a matter of whether your 'vote counts', it is a belief. 'Evolution' rejects ID because the whole scientific community recognises a productive difference. There is only a very select few that claim ID is a science. Most Christians and religous people who are scientists recognise that ID is theology, but not science. They understand that ID is not a science. To ignore this is narrow minded and simply a consequence of pure naivity.
b. Exactly. You don't care. That is the issue, because you see no problem if it is or not taught in science. It seems you see no productive difference.
c.
quote:
I believe if we took I.D. and evolution out of science and put them into a theory class, there would be less conflict, and we could go onto more important things
Are you kidding!
Evolution is science buddy.
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. -- Theodosius Dobzhansky.
Evolution is the cornerstone of Biology. Evolution explains the development of life on earth, by the theory of common descent, and with paleontology we can even find out how life developed, and what the world used to look like. Shared traits, features, processes, distributions and behaviours of organisms can be understood.
quote:
A belief that everything has been created by chance I believe is less logical then believing that there is intelligence behind creation
I'm sorry but are you kidding! Why do you think this? Chance is probability. Logic=probability.
d. I'm going to repeat myself for obvious reasons. What right does it have to be taught in biology classes? its not scientific, its theology. The pseudo-code algorithm for how a scientific idea develops is:
1. Consider a particular phenomenon.
2. Propose a postulate to explain that phenomena.
3. Present evidence to support the postulate.
4. Allow others the opportunity to present evidence to either support or contradict the postulate.
5. If after a reasonable amount of time and evidence the postulate still stands up strong, it may be promoted to the rank of theory.
6. If it is disproven, goto 1.
7. If, after a much longer time, the theory is very strong and essentially unchallenged, it may be promoted to the rank of law.
Most scientific ideas have followed this whole process. Based on these criteria, 'intelligent design' is not a scientific theory at all. The reason for this is that it completely sidesteps the all-important points (3) and (4).
quote:
Neither can natural selection explain how it just naturally selects
Yes it can buddy. The whole study of evolutionary biology explains and scientifically proves the process of natural selection and how it naturally selects. I am a student of evolutionary bio. I feel absolutely no need to prove you wrong, unless you want me to enlighten you in this area of concern.
My Posts
64yrs • M • 
There was this couple working on some project, & it seems they were using photographic film related to it because they had some in a desk drawer where they were studying some rock samples. 
Oh, they discovered by further examination that the rocks they were stuying seemed to emitted some kind of radiation. Turns out it was quite dangerous as their studies cause them to absorb leathal doses of that radiation, but they weren't aware of that effect . . .back then.
