Evolution vs Intelligent Design

I have been reading, with increasing alarm, that more and more schools in the US are proposing to teach Intelligent Design alongside Evolution. Their attitude is that this is a contrary theory as to how we became who we are, and the world was formed.

It is scary how the religious element in the US can dominate and affect policies and using that influence, corrupt the system. The US system separates church and state. However, by cloaking Creationism in a scientific veil, by calling it Intelligent Design; they have attempted to work around that and introduce Creationism into the classrooms....worse, into biology classes.

Intelligent Design teaches that the world is too complex to be created by chance, someone, or something had to coordinate it. How is this different than Creationism. I have to review their scientific evidence, but I am having a hard time seeing how there could be much, if any. It has been a long 'scientific' fact that chaos is a part of nature. In mathematics, we have the Mandenblot pictures which are in fact, order resulting from chaos. Why would the evolution of life be any different.
Yes, something had to spark this event and this is probably where Intelligent Design gets its foot in the door. It is obvious that we are never going to know exactly what initiated the events which led to life on earth. The building blocks of the first forms of 'life' were here, but what caused them to evolve into beings is going to be difficult to determine.
However, to take that and leap to the conclusion that 'someone' was the catalyst is pretty darn far-fetched.

My position on all of this is that these teachings, which are based on religous principles, should be taught within a church. People who wish to subscribe to this then have a choice. I think it is absolute nonsense to teach this in a biology classroom.
Evolution, which has as its basis genetic mutations and adaptive change; is more scientific fact than a theory. The reason that it remains a theory is that it is not possible to prove that this led to 'us'. Not sure that this will ever change however, but does this lessen its reality and what we can indeed prove or demonstrate.

Goodbye, Gone

Recently there has been an immigration trial where a person, convicted of vehicular manslaughter was scheduled to be deported back to his home country. He was fighting this.
Remembering that he was not a resident or citizen of this country I welcome this policy. However, I would suggest a minor change:

Deport immediately upon conviction of a major crime.

Any person, so deported would have the opportunity to re-apply to enter this country, but switch the tables around. Instead of us having to justify and argue for their deportation, they would have to argue for their return.
These are not citizens of this country and not being a citizen we do not want him here.

We should protect our citizens through the process' of law, but these same rights do not apply to people who are visitors in this country.

Goodbye, good riddance....have a good life.