Evolution vs intelligent design (part 2)

As I stated in my last post, I don't think it is advisable to include "intelligent design" in science curriculum. It still belongs to philosophy and religion.

But the debate over the theory of evolution should be encouraged. I think evolution has become a hindrance for scientific advancement. The concept of evolution has been invoked wherever a biological process cannot be easily explained. For example, to explain why dogs have such a great olfactory sense, many people would conveniently use evolution to explain that the super olfactory sense helps dogs find foods for survival. (It begs the question why pigs did not have such a sense through "evolution"). Similarly, human acquired so many new functions that are lacked in other primates because these functions are supposed to improve human's survival. "The fittest survives". But without these functions, monkeys and chimpanzee are surviving nonetheless. They may even have better survival skills than us. If you tour a wild animal park, you will find every animal has endowed skills to survive. If only the fittest survives, how do we explain bio-diversity? Natural selection would lead to few species, not the origin of many species.

Evolution was a theory that arose from a wide-spread anti-Christianity sentiment back in the 19th century. It was part of the anti-religious movement that swept through Europe and later the New World, along with Freudism and Marxism (Communism). Evolution is more of a religion than science.