Intelligent design isn't science, it's religion.

Intelligent design isn'tscience, it's religion.
First and foremost, intelligent design is not science, nor is it based upon science, nor has anyone in the scientific community given ID any credence whatsoever. There is no prediction, no observation, no record, no tests, and certainly no results. There has not been one peer-reviewed scientific article, paper, or study that has been published proposing ID as a science.
ID proponents use the guise of "academic freedom" to challenge and attack evolution while offering absolutely no scientific basis for ID. They quote Darwin and Gould, cite the Scopes monkey trial, talk of "scientific objectivity," then in the same breath declare that extraterrestrials may have designed life on Earth! Give me a break. While a statement like that may seem counterintuitive, their strategy is meticulously premeditated, and apparently working on those who are susceptible to psuedo/junk-science. ID proponents avoid using words like God and creation, then trot out so-called experts to attack evolution, and foster inflammatory discussions in public circles where the less-than-scientifically minded tend to perceive it as legitimate scientific debate. It is called "teach the controversy" and it is the rallying cry of the ID movement. ID's core scientific principles, created by a mathematician and bio-chemist, have been thoroughly dismissed in that Darwin's theories also account for biological complexity. ID relies on evolutionary misinterpretations, flimsy probability calculations, and it proposes absolutely no testable explanations other than an undefined "intelligence" must have created complex life.
Evolution is the sole basis for all biological studies and research on this planet and it has been repeatedly vetted through the years. Natural selection has been witnessed in the lab with insects, not to mention the scores of deadly bacteria that have now become drug-resistant in our hospitals. Even the Vatican has acknowledged the validity of evolution. It convened a conference just this past summer on evolution, not to dispute it, but to acknowledge it and see how its value fits into creation. Pope Pius XII once called evolution an "an unfortunate possibility." Whereas Pope John Paul stated in 1996 that evolution is "an effectively proven fact."
Why aren't the other areas of science and their theories being challenged? Because they do not go directly against the Bible. Creation and evolution can co-exist, however. Evolutionary scientists are generally not atheists, but they use the natural method in science to help find out who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.
Keep intelligent design, or "creation in a lab coat" as it has been described, in Sunday school and let our children deal with real science, math, and history in the classroom. Teaching critical thought on evolution is fine, teaching ID in philosophy or a comparative religion class is OK too, but the day ID is to be taught as a science in my children's public school, is the day we move out of Ohio.
Praise safety forces, then offer them chump change
Shortly after 9/11, The Vindicator was at the forefront in organizing a parade in Boardman as a tribute to our safety forces. In its Dec. 28 editorial, it then questions the wage agreement between Boardman firefighters and the township administration. In 2001, the media says they're our heroes. In 2004, it wants to pay them like chumps.
Since the media is so concerned about how Boardman's tax dollars are being spent, maybe it should also demand concessions from the public. It could start with urging the public to do things like obey the law. Think of the savings! Then it can take a look at the thousands of dollars Boardman spends annually paying safety forces to foster events such as parades and car shows. More savings! Such events tend to inconvenience many of Boardman's taxpayers and at their expense while advertisements related to these events and the events themselves help keep the media alive.
It's amazing how we love to complain about paying for things we really need and are truly a bargain, like safety forces, but we fork out outrageous amounts for the unnecessary. Rather than asking whether or not government wastes money, we should be asking whether or not we encourage it.