Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

Why should it surprise us that so many religious are coming out of the closet?

Were it not for the fact they attempt to mask their agenda behind the 1st & 14th amendments, it might have been first honest thing they've said in years.

Of course, there's no p[retending they're 'objective' ? (With so many stating their purpose as being that of using religion to attack and dismantle science, clearly not.)

Now let's play level. These anti-science zealots are NOT the majority of religionists, nor even of Christians, but they do negatively influence the overall public perception and legal standing of religion, particularly Christianity, out of proportion to their numbers.

It is unsurprising to see mainstream religion distance itself from the luddite fundamentalist ideologues who lobby for the return of medeival thought and social structure.

My bet is the fundies will but further embarrass themselves, and by extension religion (with emphasis on Christianity), as they persist in pressing their duplicitous sectarian agenda.

real life,

When Kenneth Miller testified at the Dover trial, he criticized Richard Dawkins for using science to "proselytize atheism".

So are you conceding that these scientists are behaving exactly as the religious folks that you so often criticize?

So are you conceding that these scientists are behaving exactly as the religious folks that you so often criticize?

real life wrote:

So are you conceding that these scientists are behaving exactly as the religious folks that you so often criticize?

No, rl - I'm saying wingnuts are wingnuts ... something evident to all but wingnuts.

timberlandko wrote:

So, timber are you a Dawkins wannabe also?

Or do you reject the direction that these have taken in moving away from objective science and into proselytizing?

( I think any who have read your posts know the answer to this. )

Are you truly unable to recognize the falacy enhtailed by your ID-iotic question?






I suppose you must be ... or at least that you choose to so represent yourself. No matter - the effect is the same either way.

Editorial: A textbook case
(Sacramento Bee Editorial Opinion, November 24, 2006)

A first-of-its-kind lawsuit making its way through the federal courts could have a huge impact on California's public universities. The Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta (Riverside County) and five Calvary Chapel Christian School students are suing the University of California to force the state university system to count credits from religion classes toward entrance requirements for science or English or history.

A federal judge has ruled that the case can proceed to trial, which is expected in 2007.

Certainly, private religious schools have a First Amendment right to offer whatever courses they wish. But they don't have a right to demand that California's public university system accept courses premised primarily on revelations directly handed down by God to humankind in the Bible.

At stake in this case is whether California's public universities can decide which high school courses will count toward admission.

Each year high schools submit about 7,000 proposals for new courses and UC certifies about two-thirds of them. Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, for example, has 59 UC-certified courses that allow students at the school to meet all categories required for UC admission, ranging from six courses in science to nine in English and seven in history/social science. Only a handful of that school's courses have been rejected, as they should be.

For example, UC rejected high school biology and physics courses that use textbooks published by either Bob Jones University Press or A Beka Books, because the university said these textbooks "really were teaching religion instead of science."

The introduction to Bob Jones' "Biology for Christian Schools" openly acknowledges the book's primary religious mission: "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second." The book claims that Earth was created between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago and concludes, "Rather than being disproved by science, the Scriptural concept of a young Earth is actually verified by science." Yet, modern geologists, based on extensive scientific evidence, consider Earth's age to be around 4.567 billion years.

In a section on the biblical locust plague in Egypt, the book tells students, "If the conclusions contradict the Word of God, the conclusions are wrong, no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."

UC rejects courses and textbooks that "include among primary goals the personal religious growth of the student." For the social studies requirement, UC rejected the course "Special Providence: Christianity and the American Republic." For the English requirement, the university rejected the course "Christianity and Morality in American Literature," taught from a scriptural perspective with A Beka Book's "American Literature: Classics for Christians."

The lawsuit claims UC is "dictating and censoring the viewpoints that may and may not be taught" in private schools and that students are "discriminated against if they choose certain courses because of their religious perspective." Baloney.

The university is not stopping the school from teaching the courses or students from studying anything. Nor is it denying the students entry to UC. Calvary Chapel has more than enough courses that meet UC admissions standards; besides, students who haven't taken approved courses can show they've mastered the material by taking SAT Subject Tests.

There is a basic principle at stake: Just as UC would be within its rights to reject as fulfilling math requirements any course with a textbook claiming that two plus two equals five, it should be able to reject as science a course relying on a textbook that tells students to rely on faith over scientific evidence.

If necessary, the University of California should fight this case, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Im not willing to defend anything herein cause Im slowly slipping into the social implications after I try my hand at deciphering.

My God, is this thread still going?

I hope it has been said many times that Intelligent Design "Theory" is neither Science or Philosophy (or even serious Theology). It is Ideology (or ideological dogma)