Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

I didn't see the Dawkins movie but I've been talking to two guys in the pub who were very impressed by it.

Obviously,after listening to their fawnings,I came to the conclusion that it was a junket around Isreal,Turkey,North and South America and possibly other attractive destinations which they couldn't remember, or which are to be revealed in Part 11, in 5-star hotels,with the usual amenities, based on trying to prove to the viewers that they are more intelligent than they actually are as a couch potato and thus making it unnecessary for them to make any effort in studying the subject which often has long words and difficult concepts
to contend with.This is very fertile soil in which to plough.Know the inner secrets whilst sat on your big fat arse eating a bag of chips.Brilliant.Love it.He is a genius.

Exercise of power without responsibility- a bit like writing opinions on A2K....

The Second Religiousness seems to me to be inevitable and I like to think it will take us ever on,a real Faustian bedrock notion,to greater glories

NEW YORK, Dec. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The American Jewish Committee applauds today's court decision rejecting as unconstitutional the introduction of intelligent design theories into the science classes of Dover, Pennsylvania public schools.
"Today's ruling is a significant blow to those who are attempting to intrude religious dogma, under the guise of science, into the nation's public schools," said Jeffrey Sinensky, AJC's general counsel. "Intelligent design is not a scientifically accepted theory, but a religious theory similar to creationism, which has no place in the science classroom of a public school. Any discussion of creationism or intelligent design would be more appropriate in a history or comparative religion class, as opposed to a science curriculum."
In Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District, plaintiffs challenged the Dover school board's decision that required high school biology teachers to read a disclaimer referencing intelligent design prior to teaching evolution. Rejecting the school board's mandated disclaimer, United States District Judge John E. Jones III wrote, "The disclaimer's plain language, the legislative history, and the historical context in which the ID policy arose, all inevitably lead to the conclusion that defendants consciously chose to change Dover's biology curriculum to advance religion."
Intelligent design is a theory of creation which posits that a higher being is responsible for the design of the universe, since the world is a complicated, elaborate system of life which only a higher being could have created.
Judge Jones, in his ruling, concluded that intelligence design is not a science, and cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
"The secular purpose claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause," Jones said.
"The court's ruling underscores that the appropriate place to teach religion is in churches or synagogues, and not in the public schools," said Sinensky. "We hope that today's ruling will give pause to other school boards around the country that are flirting with the idea of introducing intelligent design into science curricula."
AJC is a staunch defender of the separation between church and state in the public school curriculum, particularly in the science classroom. In this vein, AJC has submitted amicus briefs in the key legal cases concerning evolution and creationism over the years, including Edwards vs. Aguillard. Most recently, AJC joined this year in a coalitional brief filed with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Selman vs. Cobb County, where a school district required disclaimer stickers to be posted on science textbooks that teach evolution.

c.i. in answer to your comment that two negatives make a positive made me pause a while.

I have been thinking when I mentioned that the probability of a god with super powers poofing into existence out of nothing. In my case I assumed that there is no god as he cannot be proven to exist so I used 0/0 which is really undefined or indeterminate. But logically it is true, you obtain 'nothing' from 'nothing'. As there is nothing there is no god.
But if I assume that a god exists as it cannot be proven that he does not exists then I get 1/0 which is infinity. Logically it is false as you cannot get 'something' out of 'nothing'. So it is improbable for a god to poof into existence out of nothing.

george, Sophistry is better than dumbass opinions. I found his post to be quite logical.

Your questions concerning the origin of life as we know it on this planet is misguided and unreasonable at best when science continues to look for answers. Unless scientists can find observable, repeatable, evidence, we may never have those answers.