maria celeste@23: Welcome! Since you seem to be asking sincerely, I will attempt some answers.

do the schools not teach natural selection?

Natural selection has no creative power. It only “selects” changes that were introduced through other mechanisms. Natural Selection — by itself — has no evolutionary power at all. Yes, the schools teach natural selection, but that doesn’t add anything to the explanation of where evolutionary changes come from. The comment here is about the source of those evolutionary changes.

Do the schools refuse to offer the point of view of an Intelligent Designer

The public schools most certainly DO NOT offer the point of view of an Intelligent Designer. And doing so would be likely to trigger a law suit against the teacher. The very purpose of this law is protect teachers from negative repercussions of discussing in the classroom scientific weaknesses and scientific alternatives to conventional theories. It does not “promote ID” as such.

I do find the comments about killing the biology professor on here very disturbing

These comments were made if the context of equally (or more) vile things said by this biology professor in the past on other blogs and in other contexts. You are apparently new to this debate. Let me summarize by saying that years of experiences has revealed that many Darwinists say vile and vicious things in their attacks on ID supporters. Please see the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed where the very biology professor we are talking about makes an appearance to get just a small taste of the hatefulness coming from the other side. But this movie only scratches the surface. See also the website for Slaughter of the Dissidents for a more complete history of how people who oppose Darwinism get treated by those who support it. It can get extremely nasty. The post you refer to must be understood in that context. Emotions can run high, even on the ID side. If you expect all of us on the ID side to be saints, you will be disappointed.

Re: “Evolution by time and chance is as well tested as gravity for Pete’s sake. How long does take to convince a kid that when he throws a baseball into the air gravity will pull it back to earth? . . .”
While I recognise the heavily ironic tone in the just cited, I think it appropriate to call attention to remarks I just made in some notes on a comment by a certain Mr Dart, by way of a footnote to the John Kwok thread, in the context of Denyse’s recent quote from Prof Provine on the implications of and likely inferences from evoltuionary materialist thought, which is often presented as unquestionable “science”:

n there is for so teaching Newtonian physics. And, when we teach classical physics, it is always in the context that there is a modern physics too.

8 –> Moreover, that is in a context where, ESPECIALLY, GIVEN REMARKS SUCH AS ABOVE FROM PROF PROVINE ON THE WORLDVIEW LEVEL ASSOCIATIONS AND PROBABLE INFERENCES FROM DARWINIAN THEORY, STARTING WITH DARWIN HIMSELF, e evolutionary materialist view of origins has far more serious personal, societal and spiritual consequences than classical physics. (And, there are a lot of parallel inferences, assertions and remarks by a lot of others of similar stature over the past 150 years; with an associated history of over 100 millions slaughtered by Governments influenced by and using darwinist and derived or associated arguments to rationalise mass murder.) [Not to mention, a certain ongoing Abortion holocaust . . . ?]

9 –> In that light, then, st who is suppressing truth that is known or should be known, and just who is substituting a convenient, amoral agenda-serving myth; all in the name of truth, science and education? [Mr Dart's accusation against Dr Dembski et al was that they are "l[ying] to children” in the recent book, Understanding Intelligent Design.”]

“There is something rotten in the state of Denmark . . .”

GEM of TKI

why is the clause about religion needed?

Because two federal district judges have declared by judicial fiat that any criticism of evolution in a public school amounts to a violation of the establishment clause. The LA lege is using legislative fiat to declare that criticism of evolution in and of itself is sound pedagogy and that the statute in no way authorizes introducing religious creation stories (read Genesis) into the classroom.

You know, Dave, we can postulate the existence of something when we evidence of its effects.

Ah, I see. So when physicists point out that the parameters which make our universe even possible to exist are so fine tuned as to defy explanation that’s not an effect of design but just an effect of there being 10^500 possible “pocket universes” in a huge meta-verse and with that many universes out there one just happened to be suitable for life. No stretch of the imagination there.

And when we see an intricate machine like the ribosome that manufactures complex protein parts that self-assemble into many other machines and communication channels, and when the machine that makes the protein parts is driven by instructions stored in a highly optimized abstract digital code that’s not an effect of a designer but just an illusion of design.

And when you experience your “conscience” you think that’s just the effect of the dance of atoms in your brain but when someone else experiences their conscience and think it’s the effect of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that’s just a silly superstition.

No double standards here, right?

Plenty of murders happen that way. Killer takes out the victim(s) then uses the last bullet on himself.

You’re quite right about the worldview. If there’s no possibility of being held accountable for your actions in life after you’re dead then there’s nothing to stop you from doing anything you want as long as you know you won’t be punished for it while you’re alive.

Given the large and growing number of people who don’t believe in accountability after death I often wonder why there aren’t a lot more murder/suicides. What’s stopping them?

Oh I don’t know. If someone convinces themself that Myers is an enemy or a threat of some sort then they’re just acting in the role of a police officer or soldier. Never underestimate the power of rationalization.

A friend of mine who scoffs at both ID and religion has stated to me in the past that he would have no compunction about doing just what you said (although PZ was not the target). Though not a man of science, he thinks like PZ and understands that if PZ’s worldview is correct, then offing your enemy in the last moments of life is permissible. How could it be otherwise?