Intelligent Design Should Not be Taught as Science

Marvin Cohen, president of the American Physical Society (APS), has stated that that only scientifically validated theories, such as evolution, should be taught in the nation’s science classes.

Click here to read the entire article

Sure, because you can't test it. Anything that deals in non-caused event chains, such as the first cause in a causal universe, will never be testable with the scientific method, which can only test causal relationships.

And further, invoking something like an "intelligent designer" naturally leads to two issues:

It is impossible to prove or disprove such a statement as "The intelligent designer designed the world so that we would not see him but by his works" by any logic or rational means, and therefore it must fall outside of science.

Secondly, it leads to the question of "What created or designed the intelligent designer?", which is again, unanswerable.

Scientifically.

"All lies and jest still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest" Paul Simon
This sounds a little like censorship to me.

How so?

I inadvertently posted a thread under chemistry, but I intended to post under "general science".
There is a lot we can use the 4 processes of "the scientific" method to test miracles as interpreted by the ancients.
Please read shadetreecountryboy's thread under the chemistry forum.
Thanks.
1 thing for starters,"the Nile running red with blood", pissed off algae!

Hypotheses form the basis of scientific discussion, brainstorming, speculation and experimentation. Many of them start out with the words, "what if..." Many of them are engaged in in an informal manner: scientists sitting around a table in the corner of their favorite bar, over glasses of wine and beer, drawing on table napkins, and making puns with the word, "entropy". I doubt that a scientist EVER suggested they go to the dictionary to determine if their conversation was a real "hypothesis" or not.

But as mentioned in other posts, the proper outcome of a proper hypothesis is at least one prediction -- and the design of at least one experiment to test that prediction.

As to "first cause" -- there is no such thing. It's a rhetorical word-structure invented by Aristotle:
But "first cause" pre-supposes, or assumes, a source of god-like powers. So, you cannot use it to "prove" the existence of god. Circular logic. If all processes have a cause, then how can there be a first cause. This violates your first tenet that ALL processes have a cause. Any cause is itself a process and must have a prior cause, etc, etc. Nasty stuff, circular logic.

Many hypotheses (conversations) do not result in predictions or in doable experiments. I don't know what you call that conversation in that case. I'm not sure anyone cares. At least, not anyone whose life work is heavily involved with creating hypotheses. I'm not sure it even matters.

In any circle of serious researchers with an abiding passion to understand our universe, to suggest an hypothesis based upon "first cause" will probably elicit gales of laughter. You might as well base it upon "the Flying Spaghetti Monster". It's funny, but it doesn't forward the conversation.

Funny, that's exactly what I said to myself in high school when introduced to the big bang.

That's all well and good, but does nothing... zilch... nada... to support the concept of first cause.

If you look at it like that brane theory is my religion, it nicely explains before the so called big bang quite well. No ID check is required. I reject reality and substitute anything that is weird and improvable!