Intelligent Design, again raises it’s head…Go away

Instead of answering Mr. Parsons’s comment to my previous post about “Intelligent Design…Baaad Science” in the comment box, I will make a post to reply to it. I feel the principle behind my objections to ‘ID’ in schools is too important to bury in comments.

You wrote: >>>The aforementioned entities represent a shutout; the court’s criteria leave little latitude for divine intervention or the miraculous and, hence, any creationist views on the origins of man and the universe.<<<

I Answer. This is as it should be. I do not want someone else’s evangelical religion forced on my children. I especially don’t want it somehow passed off as science. This is pure lying.

You wrote:>>>The ruling of the court was summary: since creation science is neither associated with nor performed by court-accepted scientific entities, creation science is not science but religion and religion, as determined by the Supreme Court, may not be taught in the public schools.<<<

I answer: This is true.

You wrote; >>>The barring of creation science, however, is not irreconcilable. The high court left open the possibility that any views on origins, be it creation or otherwise, may be taught if established on sound scientific principles. Therefore, if creation science (Intelligent Design) were founded on a scientific basis, drawing from a continuum of defensible, established truths, it would be justly qualified as science and science may be taught in the public classrooms. <<<

I answer: Intelligent Design does not qualify under these terms. ID depends on magic. No qualified science has been found to confirm ID. It is improvable by real science.

You wrote: >>>Although evolutionists seized the moment, finding favor with a sympathetic judiciary, the battle for the minds and souls of the innocents in the classrooms is far from conclusive.<<<

I answer: Yes, leave my innocents alone. Your religion is not mine. Why do you want to pollute every young mind with your evangelical….stuff..? I have a right to have a school that separates church and state. Start your own schools and send your children to be indoctrinated and left out of the real world. Freedom of religion does not mean you, or anybody, has the right to indoctrinate my children with your religion. The sympathetic judiciary you mention is interpreting the law properly and correctly.

You wrote:>>>Fielding the issue once again, the definition of science, “that which scientists are generally associated with and perform,” is re-evaluated in The Quest for Right, a series of 7 textbooks created for the public schools, so as to determine if said definition is arguably correspondent or else gravely overstated.<<<

I answer: I prefer Wikipedia’s explanation for science. Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Wikipedia
I suspect that explanations such as Wikipedia’ will be used to identify whether your book is science or religion.
I want to be plain about something. I do not object to your book at all, I’m sure you will find a market. What I’m going to object to is any attempt to place it in America’s schools. That is imposing a view that I don’t want my children or my children’s children exposed to. It is brainwashing to the Nth. Degree. You have NO inherent right to impose your religious views on my children. By the way, most science does not require quantum mechanic’s to be observable or true.

You wrote:>>>Bear in mind that the backbone of obstructionism is not evolution per se, but “electronic interpretation,” the tenet that all physical, chemical, and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. Again, the philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of obstructionism be judged on these specifics: (1) “electron interpretation” and 2) “quantum mechanics.” Conversely, the view of Christians that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view, however, will not be tested by the definition of science, as before determined by the court, but by the weightier principle of verifiable truths.<<<

I answer: Huh….the only part of that I can answer is the end. ‘The weightier principle of verifiable truths’

I posit that you have no verifiable truths (verifiable by science) for your position.

Can you imagine a farmer speaking to his county agricultural extension agent and asking why his crop that year wasn’t very good? “Well Clem, maybe you didn’t pray hard enough, or God has put a pox on your tribe.”

Some problems in science are very hard to answer or explain, but we don’t give up and say that it’s magic. God did it we can’t solve it. That was done in the Dark Ages, when religion ruled. We humans never want that to happen again.

Religion has shown again and again that it cannot be trusted, and the reason is that MAN is the one responsible for any using of it’s precept’s, and man cannot be trusted in matters of applying religious doctrine correctly, because they keep changing it. They make assertions or interpretations and adherents break away from time to time and interpret things differently. It has been that way since religion was invented about 1200-1500 BCE, and it will never change because of the character of men.

I have no doubt that in a few hundred years; your evangelical interpretation of the Bible will fade away to be replaced by another. Remember the Catholic’s ruled western society for over a thousand year’s; look at the mess they made. I literally shudder if I imagine theist’s ruling the Earth.

Keep your religion to yourself. Preach it, or witness it, in your churches or to your neighbors, but keep it out of public schools. I strenuously object to that.

Peace to all…

Add to Technorati Favorites