<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	  <title>Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with intelligentdesign</title>
      <link>http://ask.metafilter.com/tags/intelligentdesign</link>
      <description>Questions tagged with 'intelligentdesign' at Ask MetaFilter.</description>
	  <pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:08:28 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:08:28 -0800</lastBuildDate>

      <language>en-us</language>
	  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	  <ttl>60</ttl>	  
	<item>
	<title>Antibiotic resistance: proof of evolution?</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/26796/Antibiotic%2Dresistance%2Dproof%2Dof%2Devolution</link>	
	<description>This question will either prove my ignorance, or that of the &quot;intelligent design&quot; crowd: Why doesn&apos;t antibiotic resistance prove the theory of evolution?</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2005:site.26796</guid>
	<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:08:28 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>antibioticresistance</category>
	<category>evolution</category>
	<category>intelligentdesign</category>
	<dc:creator>CMichaelCook</dc:creator>
	</item>
	<item>
	<title>Prognostication: the future should I.D. &quot;win&quot;</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/25307/Prognostication%2Dthe%2Dfuture%2Dshould%2DID%2Dwin</link>	
	<description>What do you think is going to happen to the USA if &quot;Intelligent Design&quot; is successfully placed into the science curriculum? I&apos;m thinking of &quot;in the long run,&quot; ie. say a generation or two after &quot;Intelligent Design&quot; becomes ensconced in a school curriculum.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/47366&quot;&gt;Good Reading&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;The ID movement is more than an attack on biology because evolutionary theory unifies the life and earth sciences with physics and chemistry. If ID is accepted as a credible science, then the most basic definition of a scientific theory and the fundamental principles of the scientific method are not being taught. Johnson is right: ID can be the wedge that splits science wide apart.&quot;</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2005:site.25307</guid>
	<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:13:19 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>evolution</category>
	<category>future</category>
	<category>intelligentdesign</category>
	<category>religion</category>
	<category>school</category>
	<category>science</category>
	<category>teaching</category>
	<category>trends</category>
	<dc:creator>five fresh fish</dc:creator>
	</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>

