Censoring God: Why Is Science Establishment Threatened By Intelligent Design?

[Bible Defender]

But it's not God who is telling me this. It's you. You're the one who is telling me that ID is fact, and I want to know why I should agree.

To me, ID is self-evident. Our beliefs are likely based on a different set of maxims, so I can't speak for you.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

I think the larger question remains. Why should ID NOT be taught in the schools.

And I think the answer still remains.

This whole push for teaching ID in public school as an alternative to evolution in order to point our supposed “weaknesses” in the theory of evolution is just a blatant attempt to push religious beliefs on the public using tax dollars.

ID may be dressed up like science. Heck, even the name “Theory of Intelligent Design” or “Intelligent Design Theory” seems to purposely confuse the issue in an attempt to lend the belief scientific merit. Meanwhile, at its core, ID requires a “designer”. Unless we are suggesting that there is a possibility that we are the product of an alien race’s biological engineering, who is this “designer”? Of course it’s really no mystery as this ID “theory” is the product of religion. This designer is god. More and more theists are openly admitting this just like the OP does in stating so bluntly “CENSORING GOD”. Therefore the whole basis for ID is steeped in theology not empirical evidence. How does one seriously propose this as an alternative to a scientific theory such as the theory of evolution much less propose that our tax dollars should be spent to spread religious propaganda?

The maintenance of the concept of “separation of church and state” is important for the mitigation of these issues. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". Religious institutions are happy to use this for the purpose of shelter from taxation, but when it limits their incursion into government cries of persecution ring out. The public school system is a governmentally controlled institution funded by our tax dollars. These tax dollars should not be spent to establish religious beliefs.

I would EVEN go insofar as to separate out from the scientific cirriculum. But I would say, in my opinion, that a majority of Americans hold some belief in a higher power AND in a creator God.

I don’t care how many people like ID. You can all buy the course on DVD and sleep with it under your pillow for all I care. The fact remains that ID is steeped in theology and should not be taught in public school funded by public tax dollars.

 

[SackLunch]

Aww.. Let me break out my sad violin muzak while you heave about your poor persecuted ID “theory”.

Your attempt to twist the actuality of the situation into some religious persecution scenario perpetrated by big bad science is rubbish. Go peddle your snake oil elsewhere, I’m not buying it.

Relax, EmpircalAgnostic...I'm not 100% dogmatic about it anyhow. I still have questions about it. Read my above statements.

 

[nvxplorer]

To me, ID is self-evident. Our beliefs are likely based on a different set of maxims, so I can't speak for you.

Then you should be able to explain why it is self evident. I take it you're not proposing an ID curriculum that simply states "ID is self evident. Class dismissed."

 

[SackLunch]

And I think the answer still remains.



I don’t care how many people like ID. You can all buy the course on DVD and sleep with it under your pillow for all I care. The fact remains that ID is steeped in theology and should not be taught in public school funded by public tax dollars.

Okay I HALF agree with that. I won't deny that ID has a religious basis. And again, who will create the ID curriculum - Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Creationists like Ken Ham? And who gets the final say? My suspicion is that the true Biblical account of creationism I believe in will get brushed aside anyhow and melt into a multitude of beliefs.

I agree that perhaps ID does not belong in a science curriculum. But I think science curriculums SHOULD at least mention creationism (maybe even for one day or one hour) and discuss it as an alternative viewpoint to evolution. And even if ID was taught as part of social studies - or cultural studies - well okay, I'll settle for that.

I also think that churches should teach people ID. Unfortunately it looks like that won't happen soon though.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

One issue I do have with ID though believe it or not is this. Who will determine the curriculum? There are many competing views out there. Will it be a religious group? Will it be a Christian group? A Muslim group? Which version of ID will be taught? And, CAN IT BE taught "neutrally" as in no outright religious influence?

Of course, as a Christian, I would want it to be based on the Bible. But obviously in our multicultural society I realize that it won't happen. I just wonder how they'd do it.

Of course worrying about curriculum suggests that it belongs in public school in the first place. It simply does not.

Relax, EmpircalAgnostic...I'm not 100% dogmatic about it anyhow. I still have questions about it. Read my above statements.

If you’re going to take a politically charged issue and post a thread that twists the facts around to make it look like big bad evilution is persecuting ID advocates then you are bound to raise someone’s ire.

 

[Bible Defender]

Then you should be able to explain why it is self evident. I take it you're not proposing an ID curriculum that simply states "ID is self evident. Class dismissed."

I'm not proposing any curriculum. I just don't want the evolutionist religion to be fed to students under the banner of science. Let's keep creation and evolution out of the science class rooms and start teaching useful information. Why do we need to tell kids that we are related to a cabbage? There is no good reason, it's just humanist/materialist nonsense.

Tell me, why is it self evident to you that you have the ability to accurately perceive reality?

 

[random_guy]

Okay I HALF agree with that. I won't deny that ID has a religious basis. And again, who will create the ID curriculum - Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Creationists like Ken Ham? And who gets the final say? My suspicion is that the true Biblical account of creationism I believe in will get brushed aside anyhow and melt into a multitude of beliefs.

I agree that perhaps ID does not belong in a science curriculum. But I think science curriculums SHOULD at least mention creationism (maybe even for one day or one hour) and discuss it as an alternative viewpoint to evolution. And even if ID was taught as part of social studies - or cultural studies - well okay, I'll settle for that.

I also think that churches should teach people ID. Unfortunately it looks like that won't happen soon though.

I don't think that's possible or that it's a good idea to even do so. Which creation theory do you teach? Norse? Greek? Christian? Wicca? Instead of that, why not keep only science in the science classroom. Currently, there's no better explanation for the the diversity we see on Earth other than evolution.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Okay I HALF agree with that. I won't deny that ID has a religious basis. (snip)

But I think science curriculums SHOULD at least mention creationism (maybe even for one day or one hour) and discuss it as an alternative viewpoint to evolution. And even if ID was taught as part of social studies - or cultural studies - well okay, I'll settle for that.

I also think that churches should teach people ID. Unfortunately it looks like that won't happen soon though.

The only proper venue for ID is church and private school. Anything else violates the separation of church and state.

 

[SackLunch]

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

And you know why I said this about President Bush. It's because I've noticed that every time he gets into hot water - every time his polls go down or a scandal comes up - all he has to do is say one little thing to pander to the Religious Right. Then BAM - he's got 'em hooked again. I am a conservative evangelical Christian, and hoped Bush would be a good President. But I and many others have been SORELY disappointed.

And now Bush is talking about ID, like he really cares.

Anyhow, I will consider this matter at further length. I am a supporter of Biblical creationism, but am still riding the fence on the matter of ID, who will have the final say in the curriculum, and whether it would actually reflect Biblical creationism in the end.

 

[Self Improvement]

I'm not proposing any curriculum. I just don't want the evolutionist religion to be fed to students under the banner of science. Let's keep creation and evolution out of the science class rooms and start teaching useful information. Why do we need to tell kids that we are related to a cabbage? There is no good reason, it's just humanist/materialist nonsense.

Tell me, why is it self evident to you that you have the ability to accurately perceive reality?

Evolution is not a religion and has nothing to do with humanism or materialism.

And of course you use the typical "related to a peanut" Hovind-type argument to make evolution look bad or something.

 

[UberLutheran]

Intelligent design is not a science theory, it's a fact. If we're going to play with semantics and say that science needs to be falsifiable, then we might as well say that gravitational attraction isn't scientific because it's an observed fact. Everything is part of God's design, there is no destinction between that which is and isn't designed. Just because we know that life is designed doesn;t mean that we can't study it, including microevolution.

Would you please provide some of this evidence, or at least links to where we can read supporting evidence for intelligent design?

 

[SackLunch]

Of course worrying about curriculum suggests that it belongs in public school in the first place. It simply does not.

If you’re going to take a politically charged issue and post a thread that twists the facts around to make it look like big bad evilution is persecuting ID advocates then you are bound to raise someone’s ire.

If you'll notice, I said nothing up until a few minutes ago. In my OP I simply posted an article snippet for discussion. I didn't add any of my own words or commentary. No twisting of facts from me!

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not proposing any curriculum. I just don't want the evolutionist religion to be fed to students under the banner of science.

So ID isn't a religion but evolutionary theory is?
Doublethink is fun!

Let's keep creation and evolution out of the science class rooms and start teaching useful information. Why do we need to tell kids that we are related to a cabbage? There is no good reason, it's just humanist/materialist nonsense.

If you really think that's what evolution is, then it shows more than anything else why we need it to be taught.

Tell me, why is it self evident to you that you have the ability to accurately perceive reality?

Because we can do it with a minimum of mythology involved?

 

[Bible Defender]

Would you please provide some of this evidence, or at least links to where we can read supporting evidence for intelligent design?

As I've stated before, the fact of intelligent design is self-evident. We are without excuse.

 

[nvxplorer]

I'm not proposing any curriculum. I just don't want the evolutionist religion to be fed to students under the banner of science. Let's keep creation and evolution out of the science class rooms and start teaching useful information. Why do we need to tell kids that we are related to a cabbage? There is no good reason, it's just humanist/materialist nonsense.

Tell me, why is it self evident to you that you have the ability to accurately perceive reality?

Because my God tells me so, and my God is bigger than your god. (did you miss my other post?)

The only reason you reject evolution is because it creates doubt in your narrow interpretation of Genesis. Rather than admit that your interpretation may be faulty (is it self evident to you that you have the ability to accurately perceive reality?), you turn to denial, rationalization and other assorted self-deceptions to maintain your comfort zone. If your faith hinges on a strict interpretation of scripture, what does that say about your faith?

The real world is not concerned with your or anyone else's inability to accurately perceive reality. You can hoot and holler all you want. No one is listening.

 

[Ozymandius]

As I've stated before, the fact of intelligent design is self-evident. We are without excuse.

Then you don't know what a fact is. That must get really confusing.

 

[Self Improvement]

As I've stated before, the fact of intelligent design is self-evident. We are without excuse.

You're wrong because I say so. I have a book that tells me so. Nothing further is required.

 

[nvxplorer]

As I've stated before, the fact of intelligent design is self-evident. We are without excuse.

Yes, we are without excuse(s), but you apparenty aren't.

 

[Bible Defender]

So ID isn't a religion but evolutionary theory is?
Doublethink is fun!

I never said ID wasn't religious, don't put words into my mouth, sir.

Because we can do it with a minimum of mythology involved?

We can cut one other myth out of what we teach school children as well...