evolution as taught is simply natural selection

No it isn't. The unscientific parts are also taught. They seem to be given more weight even.

Lets just say that what you call natural selection, I see as simply evolution.

Many separate them into micro and macro evolution, however I think evolution and natural selection are more meaningful terms.

If you want to get specific there are dozens of evolutionary theories, all of which are scientific to a degree

Not if they aren't falsifiable.

I get uppidy about this topic because I see so many religious cranks attacking evolution

Yeah it's funny how hard it is to keep religion out of this topic eh?

Wow, you're the first person who has ever said that.

The main difference with biology is the reliance on 'natural experiments.' Rather than controlling all the variables, you look for sitautions where they were controlled for you. Then you get into a heavy reliance on statistics because each individual experiment is far less conclusive. So you are either in the murky area of probabilities or you stick to cataloguing observations.

I'm not too concerned about what is taught at universities as you go there to question and contribute to knowledge, whereas with high school it is far more one way.

The theory of Intelligent Design is a heresy. It explicitly disavows the necessity of God as the creator of the Universe, and promotes an attitude of rationalism which is subversive of faith. St Thomas among others has made it clear that heresy is the greatest sin, and therefore those guilty of promoting the doctrine of Intelligent Design will surely pay the price on Judgment Day.

People of firm faith do not require forked-tongue rationalism to sustain them, but those of little faith will find the logical temptations of the tree of knowledge difficult to resist.

Intelligent Design is merely a fig leaf for the unfaithful who have become aware of their nakedness.

Generally agree, sense, I don't think ID is really meant to be taken seriously by informed people. It's aimed mainly at impressionable schoolchildren. It was a spoiling tactic designed to muddy the waters in the hope of stemming the flow of educated people away from the church. The problem is that any kid with half a brain, who appreciates the reasoning, will soon find far more credible explanations to satisfy their curiosity. It's a counterproductive tactic in the long term (it is heresy after all), but I suppose it also helps a few "pretend" churchfolk with guilty consciences to sleep easier at night.

Religious people have to keep religion and science separate. To do otherwise is to recognize that elements of their scripture are just hopelessly obsolete and long discarded attempts to explain the nature of the world. I wouldn't be surprised if deep linguistic analysis of current origin theories was still able to detect relics from the 'Genesis' model underlying some modern concepts. I'm just speculating here, but Divine Creation was the accepted model for a long time before competing ideas were allowed to be aired publicly, and the transition from this period, known as the Dark Ages, to the Enlightenment was not instantaneous.

Quote:

I'm not quite so sure. My old Pa always carried a spare pair of underpants - "In case of the Second Coming" - he would say. Funny, he wasn't really religious either. 

Is my pet. She is a turtle.

Her kind has evolved over eons

IQSRLOW - why ? How ?
Did some fish wake up one morning 50 millikon years ago and think "I want to crawl under that rock".
So over that 50 million years the rubbing against the rock "develop" a protective bone structure.

Do go on Sprint..I havent heard this one..