Stein (as with the majority of vocal ID supporters) shows gaping flaws in his scientific knowledge and relies on combination of oratory skills and political spin rather than the aforementioned knowledge to disprove Darwinism. Such as the 'lightning striking a puddle of mud' comment and 'the cell having thousands of moving parts, each of which has to work perfectly'. <br> <br>His comment on 'Darwinism having obvious gaps' is correct, it does have gaps. Darwin himself realized this and stated at the time that this was the case. It has been the study of scientists worldwide for the last 150 years to attempt to fill these gaps in knowledge, some have not been filled, many have. <br> <br>Intelligent design may be an 'effort to fill in some of those gaps' but its a piss-poor effort scientifically. In fact, it isn't Science at all. It's Religion masqueraded as science which is flawed to the core and will not hold up to the smallest amount of scientific scrutiny. In fact I would go as far as to say it is religious propaganda. If the religious community wish to apply scientific logic to a scientific theory that is 150 years old they should, at the very least, hold their own 'scientific research' to the same logic and method otherwise it simply isn't science. <br> <br>It is fair to state that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. You can believe in God as well as evolution. The only problem occurs when you cling too tightly to the scripture in the Bible, particularly Genesis. If you accept the Bible as the word of God as written by man then it is fair to state that the Biblical scripture is subject to man's own fallacies (as stated in the Bible.) <br> <br>The real danger with introducing religion into a Science class is not in your average person learning about ID but your average scientist learning flawed and incorrect scientific method, or even worse, every scientist learning incorrect scientific method which is possible over several generations of indoctrination. Religion is created for accessibility to the average person, Science is not, it is an attempt to thoroughly answer some of the most vexing questions asked by humankind by inspection (not easy to do when you are working with cellular structures that are only nanometers in size) and critical thinking whereas Religion is an attempt to answer the same questions through faith and basic logic. Both Science and Religion have their place in modern day society but they are two very different approaches at the same thing and should not interfere with each other directly. <br> <br>I understand your point about politics Deathclaw, but as to chemistry/biology not being as relevant to everyday life I would pose that many of your everyday technologies that you take for granted have been produced through science, including cars, computers, medicine. Without scientific method you would be hard pushed to find any technology which existed today ranging all the way back to the wheel. Really, science as with religion lies at the core of human society. But you are correct in that chemistry or physics will not directly get your car engine started or your puncture repaired. <br> <br>Religion and power lie hand in hand however, and it is often noted in ANY country in ANY place at ANY time that it is possible to abuse religion directly to garner personal power and wealth. It is no surprise that the Vatican is one of the most wealthy institutions on the planet and the Pope is one of the most influential men politically on the planet also. It is laughable that Stein mentions persecution of scientists, because that is exactly what the church has done for contradicting their way of thinking in the past. Giving the church and religious leaders the means to persecute critical thinking again would be a terrible mistake for humanity to make.