You just don’t have enough faith!
Published by Jake Allen May 2nd, 2005 in UncategorizedThe second law of thermodynamics aside . . .
This /. entry has an extended rant(s) about the Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design, an article at kiro5hin. I enjoy both /. and kiro5hin regularly (warning: like most public forums, they both contain profanity and madness!).
I bring up the issue now because a PA school board is now requiring science teachers to explain the flaws with evolutionary theory, and that “intelligent design” is a valid alternative.
I weigh in that this is a church-state issue, and that the Christians who lobbied the school board for the change are on the wrong side of the issue. As detestable as this may seem to some of you, I think that the ACLU will rightly argue that Intelligent Design is a sectarian view. The merits of Intelligent Design methodology aside, a reasonable and prudent person would agree with me that the consensus of the scientific community does not support Intelligent Design, and that those who practice science with ID methodology do so primarily for sectarian reasons.
Further, these politics make Christians appear unreasonable and anti-scientific. As a Christian, I think such actions injure the name of Christ.
Don’t think so? Listen to these scientists who were asked, “If you could teach the world one thing . . .” Their responses should be illuminating.
Madness!
Nice links Jake! I agree completely, and would add that I find Chirstian attempts for equal time for ID, but not for other similar theories (from the perspective of acceptance in science) like string theory, MOND, etc extremely amusing. For all the fine secular lip service to “equal time”, the ID crowd isn’t trying to give alternative theories equal time.
While I do think the folks in PA may have jumped the gun. . .
I do not think the ACLU (or anyone else for that matter) can “rightly argue that Intelligent Design is a sectarian view.”
ID makes no specific sectarian claims - unless one asserts that every theist on the planet be lumped together as a giant “sect.” This would effectively legitimize the contention of many in the religious community that naturalists/materialists/atheists/evolutionists (whatever you prefer to call them) see themselves as a religious group - an anti-religious - an opposed to religion - a “different from” religious group. This supports the idea that religion (in the form of anti-religion) is already being taught in public schools in violation of the 1st Amendment.
The US Constitution favors no sect - or anti-sect. (cf The Secular State)
An unwise (i.e. usual) court decision in this matter alienating people of acknowledged religious faith will further the chasm dividing the country, fuel the fires of the conservative culture war, and lead to over-reaction in other parts of the country with deleterious effects for all.
Very nice