Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

If they can't be answered by science, just how do you propose to 'answer' them at all?

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in.

Romney in 2005: Opposed Teaching Intelligent Design in Public Schools
(David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network Opinion, May 7, 2007)

The Brody File is at it again. Another little scoop. According to an interview Mitt Romney did with The Boston Globe in December of 2005, the former Governor of Massachusetts said he was against the teaching of intelligence design in public schools. There are quite a few Evangelicals who believe the exact opposite; that intelligent design should indeed be taught in public schools alongside Evolution.

The quote comes from an article by Frank Phillips who was writing about how Romney felt the Boston media was distorting his views. During the article, Romney defends himself, saying he is not moving to the right just for future political purposes. And he gives intelligent design as proof positive. Here's part of the article:

"Governor Mitt Romney said yesterday that reports he has shifted to the political right to attract Republican primary voters are Boston media distortions, and emphasized that his positions are considered moderate on the national scene. In a wide-ranging interview with the Globe a week after announcing he will not seek reelection, Romney insisted he has remained consistent throughout his tenure in the corner office, adhering to positions he staked out in his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. The governor also pledged that any presidential ambitions he harbors will not dictate his agenda on Beacon Hill. "As I bring forward issues, it is clear that this is not something I am using for my reelection campaign," Romney said. "The Legislature can look at them with a nonpolitical light." Romney contended that political considerations are not the major factor behind his positions. For example, he said yesterday, he opposes the teaching of intelligent design in science classes in public schools, a stance at odds with some conservative voters. He said he arrived at that position without consulting his national political adviser, Michael Murphy."

The last thing Romney needs is another reason for Evangelicals not to vote for him. His Mormonism is an issue for some. His past flip flops give some pause. Now, past statements against teaching intelligent design in public school. That may play well in a General Election but to put it in football terms, Mitt Romney needs to get out of the first rounds of the playoffs before he competes in the SuperBowl. The first round of the playoffs are the GOP Primaries. Evangelicals will play a key role, especially in the South. Romney wants to be the candidate for Evangelicals. John McCain and Giuliani less so because they've been painted as either a maverick or moderate. So that's why issues like this can hurt Romney more.

So does Romney still believe that intelligent design should not be taught in public schools? I plan to ask his campaign. Check back here.

Remember, this is not so much a debate about Intelligent Design. This is about whether an issue like this would give Evangelicals a little more pause about Romney? President Bush thinks Intelligent Design should be taught.

Also for what it is worth, there are some persons quoted by CBN (and other sources) who are regarded as part of the more eccentric if not lunatric fringe of ID and should not be considered typical of what most IDers think and believe.

Foxfyre wrote:

Also for what it is worth, there are some persons quoted by CBN (and other sources) who are regarded as part of the more eccentric if not lunatric fringe of ID and should not be considered typical of what most IDers think and believe.

Foxfyre,

I am curious about how serious the issue is among conservative Christians. Do you have any information to share on that?

And we take strong exception to the public schools attempting to undermine the values taught by parents and/or destroy the religious faith of the students.

I neither presumed to answer them no suggested that anybody could. But they are valid questions nevertheless.

My interest on this subject is for teachers to leave open ended those things that science cannot answer.

If students are spoon fed only what we already know and are discouraged from opening their minds to ALL yet unknown possibilities, we are only indoctrinating kids and not educating them.

A science teacher of course should not include in science curriculum anything that cannot be supported or that will likely someday be supported by known scientific principles/procedures. But any science teacher who presumes that we know all the science that we will ever know now, or that science is capable of answering all human questions is not educated enough himself to be teaching kids.

I have no problem with a science teacher explaining the various schools of thought on ID and explaining to the students why these theories cannot be supported scientifically. I do have a problem with a science teacher saying that the theories are therefore wrong.

But almost all of us--liberal, moderate, conservative--are concerned about the concentrated and dedicated assault on religion in general and Christianity in particular and believe that due diligence is necessary to prevent losing our First Amendment rights. And we take strong exception to the public schools attempting to undermine the values taught by parents and/or destroy the religious faith of the students.

Do you have an example?

Rio Rancho school board amends science policy
(Associated Press, April 11, 2006)

RIO RANCHO, N.M. (AP) - Rio Rancho's school board has amended a policy that opponents contended was a ploy to introduce "intelligent design" into the science curriculum.

The board voted 4-1 Tuesday to remove a sentence that deviated from state standards and replace it with language taken verbatim from the standards.

The standards require schools to teach evolution but acknowledge there will be disagreements.

The theory of intelligent design says life on Earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.

Nearly all scientists dismiss it as a scientific theory. Critics say it's nothing more than religion masquerading as science.

Don Schlichte and Marty Scharfglass, two board members who introduced the policy, apologized to science teachers at Rio Rancho High School for failing to consult with them prior to proposing and adopting the policy last summer.

The sentence that deviated from state standards said: "When appropriate and consistent with the New Mexico Science Content Standards, Benchmarks and Performance Standards, discussions about issues that are of interest to both science and individual religious and philosophical beliefs will acknowledge that reasonable people may disagree about the meaning and interpretation of data."

The state standards say: "Students shall understand that reasonable people may disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion (e.g., the origin of life on Earth, the cause of the big bang, the future of the Earth)."

The Old Testament teaches the knowledge of good and evil; the Gospel, on the other hand, seems written for the predestined; it is the book of innocence. The one is made for the earth, the other seems made for heaven. According as the one or the other of these books takes hold of a nation, what may be called the religious humours of nations differs.

So the British and North American Puritans are children of the Old Testament, as Joachim of Flora and St. Francis are the children of the New. And does not the following maxim exactly fit the Church of England, of which Joubert certainly never thought when he was writing it?--"The austere sects excite the most enthusiasm at first; but the temperate sects have always been the most durable."

Definition of "science" - 3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena (Merriam-Webster Online)

Definition of "scientific method" - : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (Merriam-Webster Online)

Definition of "probable" - 1 : supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof 2 : establishing a probability 3 : likely to be or become true or real (Merriam-Webster Online)

Also, please give an example of a concentrated and dedicated assault on religion in general and christianity in particular.

Intelligent design supporters find new, creative ways to get their message out
(Editorial Opinion, The Albuquerque Tribune, March 13, 2007)

In this session of the New Mexico Legislature, no fewer than two bills and two resolutions supporting "intelligent design creationism" were proposed.
Rep. W. C. "Dub" Williams, a Glencoe Republican, sponsored two measures in the House, while the corresponding Senate measures were put forward by Sen. Steve Komadina, a Corrales Republican.

The carefully crafted "academic freedom" measures made no specific mention of intelligent design. But it was clearly the driving purpose behind these, which would have permitted and encouraged teachers to present so-called weaknesses of evolution science in biology classes. The measures would have also have given students the "right and freedom to reach their own conclusions about biological origins."

We don't encourage students to "reach their own conclusions" on how to add fractions. Why should we suddenly do so with the biosciences? Make no mistake, the only academic freedom involved in these measures is the freedom to teach creationism in science class.

The legislation doesn't look like it's going anywhere. Both House measures had been tabled, and the Senate measures may not even get to committee before adjournment this week.