On 4/22/2011 12:05 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 18:30:19 -0400, Warp wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>>> I was thinking of something else (but of course I can't remember what
>>> now).  You are correct that ID does try to pretend to be - I guess I'm
>>> having a problem with "scientific" being combined with "religious
>>> belief" and that's what led me to say "anti-scientific" - as I see
>>> 'religious belief' as being antithetical to 'knowledge'.
>>
>>    The whole idea with the "intelligent design" movement is to mask the
>> fact that it's simply repackaged creationism, by removing all mentions
>> of "God" and other theistic claims.
>
> Yes, but a rebranding of creationism as "intelligent design" doesn't mean
> it's not religiously motivated.  I guess for those who don't see through
> that deception and who have a very limited understanding of what
> scientific discovery actually is might think it was 'an appearance of
> science'.
>
>>    In the worst case scenario the whole schooling system could get
>>    sabotaged
>> to a catastrophical point. Science, technology and progress would suffer
>> enormously.
>
> Yes, and I think ultimately this demonstrates the real danger of this
> type of theistic thinking - not to mention that when it enters the public
> schools, it violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.  If
> a public school is teaching religious theology about the creation of the
> universe (whether they use religious metaphors or not), I'm sorry, that's
> state-sponsored religion, and that's unconstitutional.
>
> Jim
Strictly speaking, its only a violation if it only covers "one" creation 
theory, from a single religion. The problem is: a) there is no way in 
hell they would allow other creation theories. b) they would play the 
same idiot game as they do in government, if allowed, which is to say, 
"Since we don't have any X people here, we are only going to address the 
creation beliefs of the people that actually are in the class." In 
government this argument goes, "Since we couldn't find any priests from 
other religions, we decided to just go with the Jesus ones." c) a lot of 
them would ignore the requirement anyway, and only teach the Bible's 
version, figuring that, since everyone there is Christian, they can get 
by with it, without anyone suing them (also a common city government 
tactic for this sort of BS, and even already in some schools, where they 
teach creationism as right anyway, and only teach evolution as much as 
needed to "look" like they tried, on a government test).

Post a reply to this message