Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

For parents of high school students it is a matter of wanting our children to get a good science education. That is why some of us fight against attempts to insert pseudo-science into high school science classes.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

For parents of high school students it is a matter of wanting our children to get a good science education. That is why some of us fight against attempts to insert pseudo-science into high school science classes.

But why does this have to be a political decision about our children? Why cannot I decide to have my children be taught evolution at Charles Spencer High, while Joe Random Redneck can separately decide to have his children be taught creationism at Jerry Falwell Liberty School? After all, I have no reason to care about what Joe's children learn, and Joe has no reason to care about mine.

0 Replies

georgeon said

Quote:

specifically to the case at hand, misrepresent the findings of modern science as excluding even the possibility of a Creator. It is this perception which fuels the movement that is so decried on this thread.

Well, if you can propose a methodology to initiate the inquiry to include the possibility of a Creator, I would have no problem with it. However, Id not hold my breath on coming up with that one. There simply is no evidence available, and damn few people who wish to make this a full time career when data and evidence of the trail of life is so abundant.

Thomas said

Quote:

Why cannot I decide to have my children be taught evolution at Charles Spencer High, while Joe Random Redneck can separately decide to have his children be taught creationism at Jerry Falwell Liberty School?

The point of the Dover case, and Georgia and the Kansas doctrines are that the fundamentalists dont want to preach Creationism in just Jerrys school. They also want it taught in the public high schools. There are plenty of Baptist and Mennonite schools (just to name a few sects that openly espouse a Creationist creed). Nobody is denying them anything. Were just trying to keep it from spreading into the public schools, where , theyve got no business doing so.It may seem a silly point to someone from the EU where this issue is not even a concern. However, in the US, were still fighting it.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
For parents of high school students it is a matter of wanting our children to get a good science education. That is why some of us fight against attempts to insert pseudo-science into high school science classes.

But why does this have to be a political decision about our children? Why cannot I decide to have my children be taught evolution at Charles Spencer High, while Joe Random Redneck can separately decide to have his children be taught creationism at Jerry Falwell Liberty School? After all, I have no reason to care about what Joe's children learn, and Joe has no reason to care about mine.

The thing is that we do care about what all kids learn. The point of education standards is that we set what children should learn to function in society. Every state in the US has minimun standards that need to be met to graduate. All children are required to meet them even those that are home schooled or in Jerry Falwell's school.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The point of the Dover case, and Georgia and the Kansas doctrines are that the fundamentalists dont want to preach Creationism in just Jerrys school. They also want it taught in the public high schools. There are plenty of Baptist and Mennonite schools (just to name a few sects that openly espouse a Creationist creed). Nobody is denying them anything. Were just trying to keep it from spreading into the public schools, where , theyve got no business doing so.It may seem a silly point to someone from the EU where this issue is not even a concern. However, in the US, were still fighting it.

The problem here is that public schools are - public. Everyone must pay for them with their taxes. How do you rationalize either side in this dispute enforcing its will on the other?

I agree that many of the religious objections to some educational materials are arbitrary and unscientific. However I also note that a good deal of pseudo science has crept into our educational curricula, in some cases intruding on areas of morality once left to religion. Many such matters included go well beyond objective science and implicitly impart a doctrine of absolute all-encompassing secularism into education. This is not at all necessary for the teaching of good science, though it is usually defended (wrongly) in its name. Where is the compelling state interest here? This sort of thing excites a good deal of the religious-based objections to public school curricula. The claims and counter clams become a race to the intellectual bottom, each feeding the other.

I would favor universal government funded vouchers which would permit parents to use them in any school of their choice. This would make the controversy unnecessary.

0 Replies

Forcing public schools to teach "Creationism" simply because tax payers support it is no different from suggesting that tablets of the "ten commandments" be erected in courthouses because some tax payers support the institution. It constitutes an establishment of religion, quite apart from being a case of "teaching" superstition in a scientific setting. Should we then insist that all science curricula include all of the creation myths of all the religions represented by a pluralistic population of tax payers? What an absurdity. Your paranoia about a "secular humanist" plot becomes more exquisite with each passing year, and takes on the proportions of the Kennedy Assassination or the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists.

0 Replies

georgeob said

Quote:

Many such matters included go well beyond objective science and implicitly impart a doctrine of absolute all-encompassing secularism into education.

now your sorta starting to creep me out.So Whose view of the religious do you propose we inject into our kids in public schols?My I remind you that in Mein Kampf, Hitler confesses his belief in a Young Earth Creationist Doctrine.

_________
edited to change the signature line so It no longer looked like the eBey of Tripoli

0 Replies

You are both evading the point that public schools are funded by the compulsory taxation of the people. I don't want to see any group deciding what values to impart to my children, without my consent. I value freedom of individual choice in this matter over the concepts or dictates of any particular group, no matter how well regarded by "right-thinking elites". I would grant that freedom to all - regardless of their individual beliefs.

I certainly don't like the idea of the state intruding excessively into such areas. There is no need for us or, particularly the government, to determine a "right" answer to such questions and force it on all, regardless of their views. Further history suggests that bad consequences are often a result of any state-sponsored social indoctrination scheme in which the state acknowledges the existence of no higher power than itself.

I don't think there is any 'secular humanist conspiracy' afoot. There is a certain climate of the times in that area, many features of which I reject. Perhaps you can tolerate that attitude of mine just as I tolerate a different one in your case. Tolerance, I believe, is the missing essential element in your arguments.

0 Replies

Oh come on now george, who said Im making an argument. Im merely trying to understand your position. Weve been talking about science , somehow Im beginning to think that youre making a "paste" out of the curricula.
In the same token that youre taking a position about secular "values" that are presented to our kids, try to see the extreme 180 of that . Then perhaps you will understand the passion that the "science only in science class" evokes in many of us.

I think it was roger who, in a thread stated,
"I dont have to respect your position, just your right to hold it". Thats all that these forums require of us. Theres lots of positions I refuse to tolerate, "creeping" sectarian religiosity is just one area, especially if its not grounded in some basis of fact or evidence

BTW, what areas of science were you specifically concerned? Is it merely the lack of providing a spot for Creation in biology?
Im sure if evidence , other than that reductionist "perfect order" logic is uncovered, thered be lots of room. Unfortunately, the side in which you find yourself aligned, makes no bones about how it doesnt need to go out and scour the field for data, it has "revealed" truth.

0 Replies

Quote:

At the same time I am also aware of, and oppose, the agenda of modern proponents of the new secular religion who seek to eliminatew any reference to the possible existence of a Creator or God in public life and , specifically to the case at hand, misrepresent the findings of modern science as excluding even the possibility of a Creator. It is this perception which fuels the movement that is so decried on this thread. With respect to that particular struggle, I find both sides equally absurd and distasteful.

Quote:

However I also note that a good deal of pseudo science has crept into our educational curricula, in some cases intruding on areas of morality once left to religion. Many such matters included go well beyond objective science and implicitly impart a doctrine of absolute all-encompassing secularism into education

Note here that george redefines science as a religion called "secularism" thereby making the argument that it's a violation of the first amendment to teach science without equal time for the beliefs of the Christian religion. Whether george thought this argument up for himself or he has attained it through osmosis of the air waves, he is making a classic DI (Discovery Institute) Wedge argument.

Secularism is not a religion and cannot be treated as if it were.

Quote:

I don't know what "DI" refers to so I can't comment.

ID refers to "intelligent design theory." DI is the Discovery Institute, a "think tank" funded by Howard Ahmanson, a right wing fundamentalist Christian reconstructionist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

0 Replies

The religious' nuts want to pass ID as science, but they can't even supply any evidence to support it. They don't understand what "science" means or how science is required to show through observation and systemized facts. All the ID people can say is, "there's no other answer!" What they glean from the bible may be called "science fiction," but they can never show proof of their claims.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Oh come on now george, who said Im making an argument. Im merely trying to understand your position. Weve been talking about science , somehow Im beginning to think that youre making a "paste" out of the curricula.
In the same token that youre taking a position about secular "values" that are presented to our kids, try to see the extreme 180 of that . Then perhaps you will understand the passion that the "science only in science class" evokes in many of us.

I think it was roger who, in a thread stated,
"I dont have to respect your position, just your right to hold it". Thats all that these forums require of us. Theres lots of positions I refuse to tolerate, "creeping" sectarian religiosity is just one area, especially if its not grounded in some basis of fact or evidence

BTW, what areas of science were you specifically concerned? Is it merely the lack of providing a spot for Creation in biology?
Im sure if evidence , other than that reductionist "perfect order" logic is uncovered, thered be lots of room. Unfortunately, the side in which you find yourself aligned, makes no bones about how it doesnt need to go out and scour the field for data, it has "revealed" truth.

Perhaps we are talking past each other. I don't consider myself aligned with either side in this dispute.

I generally have a low regard for public education in this country. In certain select schools it performs well, but overall it is mediocre at very best. I believe the chief limitations in its ability to teach real science and academic rigor generally have far more to do with the bureaucritization of a public educational establishment interested mostly in itself, stoutly resisting any form of meritocracy, and excessively focused on distracting social indoctrination goals, often dressed up to appear "scientific". It has become a wasteful self-serving bureaucracy that resists accountability and needs the shock of competition and free choice by the parents of the children it pretends to serve. The only remedy for its many failures it will consider seriously is more and more public money.

I don't know much about the various ID movements that are discussed here, but I don't think they are as near a a serious threat to the quality of public education in this country as are the self serving elite who revolve through the NEA, AFT, school boards, state and Federal bureaucracies and textbook publishing houses. It may be convenient for them to focus on fundamentalist loonies who resist Darwin, but only as a distraction from their many, far more serious, failures.

My professional experience has mostly been in Engineering and in the operation of highly engineered systems. I currently run an environmental consulting company that employs lots of geologists, civil engineers, chemists and chemical engineers, and more than a few biologists. We are not a research organization and don't usually hire from the top research Universities - mostly from state Universities. I can tell you that we have learned to be very skeptical of the average product of these institutions - limited mathematical understanding, poor conceptual and compositional skills, etc. None of this appears to be a result of an excessive preoccupation with scripture or Old Testament descriptions of our origins.

I don't want to see any more power given to the educational bureaucracy than it already has. I also don't favor a public focus on peripheral or mostly phony issues that distract attention from the real failures of our system. Finally I would like to see more parental choice and less political control of the process. All of these things influence my views on this matter - in addition to the basic philosophical points I have attempted to make in earlier posts.

0 Replies

george,

There's plenty of parental choice available. What's in question is whether religion will be taught in public schools as science........it's that simple. The DI and ID people don't need to prove anything.........all they need is PR and funding.....lots and lots of money......and that they have. Those of us not so easily sold will have to make sure they do not succeed.

0 Replies

Lola,
Sadly what we have far too often in public schools today is pseudo science taught as religion. Is that any better?

0 Replies

georgeob-I remember when enviro engineering companies did hire the best. Now, alas, like any mature industry, its a commodity service industry and the "science" and real "concept engineering" has been done to a turn. Models have been developed and are workhorse systems, so, yeh, the companies hire mostly cheap. The computer industry went through the same maturation.

However, I used to run a large engineering and applied science outfit until I got the Sheets of the "commoditization" and saw that price cutting , rather than "the best services" were the order of the day. I started my own company in the mid 90s and never looked back. Anybody that deals in rare earth elements and , titanium, deals with us for resource development and processing.
From your statement about "quality of employees" Sounds like you are showing the same symptoms of concern. When you cant push your staff to their limits so that they outdo you, and you, instead, have to be the "best guy there", then, grasshopper, its time to leave. IMHO.

I keep in touch with my old staffers and many now work for big industries and many work for govt research (DOE,USGS NOAA etc) .
I dont buy your type casting of universities (even though we have similar type backgrounds)Remember, the faculty at the elite Universities are made up from as many of the State U's as they are from other elites, and new PHds of the elites are just as often teaching at the state U's cause many of the larger land grants actually pay better.. So, it isnt the college, its the products themselves.
Now having said that, I guess I cant disagree with your opinions of public schools. Where we differ is , I wish to help make a difference in the quality of the secondary ed. Its easy to bitch and kvetch about the "NEAocracies", but remember, all education is local. You cant sit back feeling smug and decry how the teachers unions and how the "low expectations" of and by secondary teachers have crapped up the teaching process. This may be true in your area, however , if you look around (werent Montgomery County Md schools a past "model" for excellence?) if they arent anymore than, I feel that you have to get personally involved in your ASME And/or ASCE education arm and start handing your school boards some ultimata about what you expect for science, math and other standards.
In Pa, we have produced a series of what we want students to carry forth from their education experience. We fought the "Creation" science crap in the state ed boards in 2001. Many of us put in lots of "pro bono" time and were influential at having tougher more challenging science standards. these standards are pro rated to consider the "ed enrichment/ talented and gifted" programs and down to the GED standards. Thats why many of us who took the time off from our own businesses (like yours) have major dogs in the fight.
If you wanna change the system, youve gotta get your hands dirty. (and, I suggest, you come across as a populist who speaks the language of scholars and the language of the school board)

I agree, weve been talking around each other, but, I know youve got a valid gripe, just dont just expel on a pbb with salvos cursing two houses, because I still submit that you dont get it. Instead, I suggest that you get on (or run for) the school board in your area.(Or at least be a regular PITA at board and "sunshine" meetings). Youll be surprised how you can be a positive influence and a spokesman for excellence in education. Im in my mid fifties and I consider this a way of giving back because I had an excellent high school experience with "enrichment" programs that were as available as I needed( I had the opportunity to work with some noted artists and to work in radiochemistry at the U of Penn) , and I was in a suburban school district that had caught and believed Pres Kennedy's challenges about science . Today, most challenges have been left in the garage of time , and the "egalitee" that surrounds much of our ed, is catering to the lowest performers by focused finacial incentives and well meaning but dumheaded multiculturalism. Well, by using your considerable talents you can be an activist for all the students so that the slower ones have the skills needed to function and that the above average and gifted ones dont become underchallenged troublemakers.

0 Replies

also georgeob.Wheres the "pseudo science being taught as "religion" This whole isue about Intelligent Design, as youve admitted, you dont have much information . May I say thatID is a cynical track that classical Creationists have taken (since, in 1987, the USSC ruled against :Creationism in science classes to finallyadjudicate the Louisiana case). The "Intelligent Design" crowd is merely removing the Genesis account freom their demands and have totally come at science from a new side that says

1We believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old

2 We believe that evolution is the best explanation
that is available for the rise of life

3 we believe that life is too complicated to have arisen by dumb luck ( my words, so as to avoid the pseudo mathematical pretense)

4An Intelligence directed this"Creation" activity and this Creation has gone on again and again until mankind has arisen as the highest form of life

This is cynical and is based not upon scientific objectivity but closely held religious beliefs. If this goes forward and is successful, the gradual decay of scientific inquiry and education by 'a thousand cuts" will begin . There will be mounted all sorts of exceptions to atomic decay by virtue of a "variable c" through geologic time. Many other laws, theories, coefficients and constants will be opened for debate (only here in the US)

All of this will be generated by debate skills alone and no scientific data will have been introduced by the ID ers.
The present arguments for ID are based on "irreducible complexity" which assumes that a Creative Intelligence is behind it all, while being silent on the Creators name. (even though there is multiple evidence lines that life went through numerous bauplans and most failed)

Id suggest that you read the "amicus brief" submitted by a group of 72 Nobel Laureates in favor of Aguillard, in Edwards v Aguillard(1987). Then read "Creations Trojan Horse". Then read about Marylands own plans for admission of Intelligent Design legislation (gonna be introduced this Fall by the contingent from Cecil County-Home of Maryland's KKK). Then read Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the US.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The point of the Dover case, and Georgia and the Kansas doctrines are that the fundamentalists dont want to preach Creationism in just Jerrys school. They also want it taught in the public high schools.

As Setanta will surely and correctly remind me, I haven't spent enough of my adult life in the US yet, so I'm not sufficiently competent to tell what is really going on. But going by the news coverage I read, the creationists do seem to care more about what their own children learn than about what other people's children learn. Their involvment in the voucher and homeschooling movements certainly indicate that.

farmerman wrote:

There are plenty of Baptist and Mennonite schools (just to name a few sects that openly espouse a Creationist creed). Nobody is denying them anything. Were just trying to keep it from spreading into the public schools, where , theyve got no business doing so.

You're making your argument too easy for yourself, because the sort of schools creationists prefer aren't competing on a level playing field. Public schools are for free, but they are paid out of everyone's tax money, including the taxes of those whose children attend private schools. By contrast, private schools are paid by the parents of the children attending them. Therefore, when anyone decides to have his children taught anywhere outside the public school system, he has to pay double: First for the education of everybody else's child, then for the education of his own. So sure, nobody is denying the fundamentalists any rights -- just imposing a $9000 fine per year on anyone who excercises this particular one.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The thing is that we do care about what all kids learn. The point of education standards is that we set what children should learn to function in society. Every state in the US has minimun standards that need to be met to graduate. All children are required to meet them even those that are home schooled or in Jerry Falwell's school.

Is it your contention that one cannot function in society without understanding the theory of evolution? That contention would be absurd -- if it were true, anyone who lived before 1859 could not function in society. I believe I must have misunderstood your statement.

Setanta wrote:

Forcing public schools to teach "Creationism" simply because tax payers support it is no different from suggesting that tablets of the "ten commandments" be erected in courthouses because some tax payers support the institution.

I agree -- so let's allow fundamentalists to opt out of the public school system without that $9000 annual surcharge. It immediately removes from the political sphere the decision what my children should learn. Everybody can decide for his own children.

0 Replies

Thomas, the contention you make with regard to school district taxation is rather a stretch to characterize it in charitable terms. Any taxpayer in Ohio, for example, who is paying $9,000 per annum in school district taxes is earning from $450,000 to $1,800,000 per annum. I know this as fact, because i have in my employment in the past applied the rate of from one-half percent to two percent of gross income for school district income taxes to people's incomes. Some school districts which do not take advantage the statutory opportunity to directly impose a school district income tax rely upon property tax levies. These are tradtionally calculated in mills per $1000 of assessed valuation. A mill is a tenth of a penny, and to my knowledge, no mills have been coined since Missouri dropped the practice in the early 1960's. Tax assessment formulae are the remaining area in which mills survive. So, for example, the eight mill increased assessment that a member here recently mentioned would work out on a property assessed at $500,000 to an additional four dollars per annum.

It certainly aids your argument to throw out a figure as ridiculous as $9000 per annum. It very likely does not, however, enter the realm of reality.

A further point with regard to your response to Parados. Even those who have no children enrolled in a school district pay either a school district income tax or have a portion of their property tax assessment devoted to the support of the local school district. In the later case, they can vote to support or reject the increase in assessment proposed for a district. But in all cases, the tax or the assessment is allocated for the education of children on the principle that educated citizens are the best opportunity for providing responsible citizens. To that extent, it matters little whether you personally believe that an understanding of the theory of evolution contributes significantly to the functioning of an individual in society. Science is but one portion of the curricula of schools. Evolutionary theory is one part of the "life sciences" portion of that portion of the curricula. Those who oppose introducing creation myths into science do so on the wholesome basis of such nonsense forming no part of science, and therefore, to the extent that such nonsense were imposed, the value of education in general in the creation of responsible citizens is lessened--at least in theory. It would make a good deal more sense to simply impose a elective option for comparative religion on curricula. Then children could easily opt for the elective, if such were the desire of their parents. Georgeob1 earlier retailed the falsehood that i was ignoring the issue of tax payers objecting to paying for something in which the did not believe. I had addressed that directly, and i'm addressing it again. It is unfortunate if democracy sometimes imposes on people that which they find unpleasant, say, oh, i don't know . . . an incompetent, greedy and venal set of self-interested petrocrats perpetuated in office. But we have to accept such things in a democracy, which may mean that one were obliged to accept that their children would actually be exposed to what is contemporarily viewed as sound scientific theory. If they wish to opt out of a school district because the district does not offer their personal favorite creation myth as a part of a science curriculum, that is their choice--but it does not lessen their responsibility to provide their statutorily-required support for comprehensive education available to all children. If they are sufficiently distrubed by the prospect, they can vote with their feet, and move to Kansas. Citizens in Kansas are apparently now faced with the choice of paying for such creation myths taught as science, or voting with their feet and heading for Nebraska, Missouri or another place less likely to subject them to an undesirable imposition.

Damned few fundamentalist, or for that matter, New Age crystal-gazers, pay $9000 annually to support public education. The "voucher" system has lead to some highly dubious requirements, however--at least in Ohio. One family of fundamentalists living on an island in Lake Erie objected to their children attending the local school district, which already provides transportation services, so the state spent a good deal more than $9000 per year to have the children flown elsewhere to attend a private, religiously-run school at which their superstition of choice were available. Hardly a wise choice, but, once again, authorized, indirectly at least, by the voters of Ohio. Please do try, however, to keep your arguments within the realm of reality. For example, an attempt to calculate the average cost per annum per taxpayer, and then the cost of the science curriculum as a percentage, and further, the cost of teaching evolution theory as a fraction of that--might yield a reasonable assessment of the extent to which the debate has entered the realm of hysteria.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Thomas, the contention you make with regard to school district taxation is rather a stretch to characterize it in charitable terms. Any taxpayer in Ohio, for example, who is paying $9,000 per annum in school district taxes is earning from $450,000 to $1,800,000 per annum. I know this as fact, because i have in my employment in the past applied the rate of from one-half percent to two percent of gross income for school district income taxes to people's incomes.

The reason I have come up with $9000 per pupil is because according to the Census Bureau, that is the total amount of federal, state, and local spending on public schools. When somebody opts out of the public school system, he gives up whatever those $9000 were buying for his child, and pays the replacement out of his own pocket. So our figures could be compatible with each other if school district taxes only pay for the local spending on schools, or if Ohio schooling costs are far below the national average, or both. However, I grant you that I have neglected the amount of money that federal, state, and local governments may be paying to private schools. If you can show me that it is enough to make my $9000 a serious overstatement, I shall apologize and adjust my figure accordingly. Of course, the point of my argument would still stand if it was $6000, or even $3000 we were talking about: Because creationists can't leave the public school system without incurring a serious financial disadvantage, farmerman loses his claim that "nobody is denying them anything" when they do. (Emphasis added) That, after all, was the claim I was answering.

Setanta wrote:

A further point with regard to your response to Parados. Even those who have no children enrolled in a school district pay either a school district income tax or have a portion of their property tax assessment devoted to the support of the local school district.

It is interesting that you justify this with the public interest in children's education. In Germany, the dominant justification of this is that when people have children, they are providing a service to the general public, so it makes sense to make the general public compensate them for it. One way of doing this is to make everyone, including singles and childless couples, pay for schooling. I personally find our justification more convincing, though I have no way of refuting yours.

Setanta wrote:

Those who oppose introducing creation myths into science do so on the wholesome basis of such nonsense forming no part of science, and therefore, to the extent that such nonsense were imposed, the value of education in general in the creation of responsible citizens is lessened--at least in theory. It would make a good deal more sense to simply impose a elective option for comparative religion on curricula. Then children could easily opt for the elective, if such were the desire of their parents.

I agree that creation myths have no place in a science curriculum, and I certainly don't want it for my children. The solution you propose makes a lot of sense to me if I accept the premise there has to be one science curriculum for everybody's children in a school district. It just so happens that I reject that premise.

Setanta wrote:

It is unfortunate if democracy sometimes imposes on people that which they find unpleasant, say, oh, i don't know . . . an incompetent, greedy and venal set of self-interested petrocrats perpetuated in office. But we have to accept such things in a democracy, which may mean that one were obliged to accept that their children would actually be exposed to what is contemporarily viewed as sound scientific theory.

I agree to a point. Individual deference to majority vote makes sense for problems where it's impractical that different people should make different decisions for themselves. You cannot have one level of national defense for yourself, and georgeob1 a different level for himself. But schooling is not one of those problems. In principle, there can be as many curriculae as there are pupils. And by the way, while I am trained as a biophysicist, and while I depended on evolutionary theory for a minor part of my Ph.D thesis, even I think it's hype that an understanding of said theory helps many people function in society. For every person, there are parts of society they cannot function in. I guess the size of that part is practically independent of whether you are a creationist.

Setanta wrote:

If they are sufficiently distrubed by the prospect, they can vote with their feet, and move to Kansas. Citizens in Kansas are apparently now faced with the choice of paying for such creation myths taught as science, or voting with their feet and heading for Nebraska, Missouri or another place less likely to subject them to an undesirable imposition.

Out of curiosity: How would you think of that argument if you were living in Kansas, and if it was made to you by one of the creationists running your local school board there? Would you accept it? My bet is you wouldn't, and I think you would be right not to.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know