I was out-of-the-box most of last week, but one news item stood out in the blur: the endorsement by the President of the teaching of intelligent design alongside evolution. Maybe I missed it, but it didn't seem to stir up much hubbub.

His comments, that students should be exposed to different points of view, are valid when it comes to politics and philosophy - including the philosophy of science - but not the science itself.

You can offer alternative explanations for many scientific 'knowns.' Common crackpot pseudo-scientific theories include the staging of the moon landing, a flat earth, etc. Should students be taught Eric Von Daniken alongside Darwin? Uri Geller alongside molecular orbital theory?

I.D. proponents insist that the functioning of the biological cell is too complicated to have been put together by trial and error.

Hell, everything in science is complicated. Have these guys ever heard of quantum physics or string theory? How does eleven dimensions strike you for complicated?

Complex phenomena imply underlying basic principles (i.e. natural selection) and at it's heart, science is the search for those principles. Abandoning the search in favor of a mystical welcome explanation is not science. It's just more Chariots of the Gods.

End rant.