The whole idea is to present Intelligent Design as an alternate scientific theory when it isn't.
Exactly, and the supporters of ID very cleverly use the argument that they "just" have a differing opinion that deserves to be heard...even though their opinion that ID is a scientific theory as valid as evolution is absolute bunk. They want schools to "teach the controversy" but the problem is that there is no controversy except the one they've manufactured. At the rate we are going, we'll soon be "teaching the controversy" that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth may actually be flat -- hey, why can't those be valid "opinions" as well, deserving of public debate? While we're at it, let's have a debate over whether witches are causing the drought in the southwest or whether raindrops are actually God's tears. Those are opinions too, so surely they must also have some validity.
no subject
Exactly, and the supporters of ID very cleverly use the argument that they "just" have a differing opinion that deserves to be heard...even though their opinion that ID is a scientific theory as valid as evolution is absolute bunk. They want schools to "teach the controversy" but the problem is that there is no controversy except the one they've manufactured. At the rate we are going, we'll soon be "teaching the controversy" that the sun revolves around the earth or that the earth may actually be flat -- hey, why can't those be valid "opinions" as well, deserving of public debate? While we're at it, let's have a debate over whether witches are causing the drought in the southwest or whether raindrops are actually God's tears. Those are opinions too, so surely they must also have some validity.