system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that intelligent design (not necessarily the six-day creation as Christians believe), but the idea that the universe did not happen by accident, is a valid theory, and should be taught alongside evolution. CMV

couple things:

* I am not what you would consider a Christian. I believe that there is a God of some kind, and he created the universe, but beyond that, I don't know. I do not agree with most things involving the Christian religion, especially their bigotry, but I do agree with more than a few things in the Bible. The issues I have are primarily in the contradictions with its moral rules.
* I am not saying anything about the age of the earth.
* My view is based on some facts and evidence, but mainly on knowledge of the sciences.
* my biggest issue with evolution is odds. The statistics that any sort of anything, even a single molecule, could be created by accident, ex nihilo, is just preposterous to me. In addition to that, the sheer size and complexity of the universe exponentially decreases these odds, and I find it baffling anyone could believe something so unlikely, so impossible, could even happen.

* this is not a view based on irrational beliefs, and I don't want people saying it is. This should be an argument of logic, not beliefs.

Edit: I apologize to all for my misuse of the word "evolution." I should have referred to evolution, abiogenesis, and cosmology separately, but i do have issues with all of them. 

* my issue with cosmology is with the "ex nihilo" problem...where did everything come from, as it is most definitely a scientific fact that, due to rates of decay and whatnot, the universe has not always been.

* my issues with evolution and abiogenesis are one and the same, and more of an issue of education than anything. These are taught as being scientific fact, however, they have never been observed, and by definition, for something to be proven by science, it must be observed.

**Edit again.** Apologies, but this blew up way more than i have time to respond to. Everyone made very valid points, and we've had some wonderful discussion, and I will take these points into consideration in forming my world-views. Thank you all again for the excellent, and for the most part, intelligent discussion.
gpt
> This should be an argument of logic, not beliefs.

And that's fine. But what creationism/ID is not is *science.*

Biology classes should teach human anatomy. Religion classes are free to teach how Eve was made from Adam's rib, but it shouldn't happen in Biology because there's no way to arrive there from the study of biology.

History classes should teach about widely recorded events. Religion classes are free to teach about the miracles of Jesus, but it shouldn't happen in History because while the life of Jesus may be a matter of historical record, his miracles are not.

Chemistry classes should teach about how chemicals interact. Religion classes are free to teach about transubstantiation, but it shouldn't happen in Chemistry because while it resembles chemical processes it is clearly not one.

See the pattern? No one is arguing that Creationism/Intelligent Design should be censored and never discussed. However, they should not be taught *alongside evolution* because evolution is taught about in science class, and Creationism/ID is not science.

Faith and science can co-exist, and they can also give us differing explanations for certain phenomena. Faith should be taught as faith, and science should be taught as science. People can believe what they like from each category, but it is important to keep the two separate.