Quote:
|
Would anyone here who has supported the preaching of creationism in public schools also support the teaching of this version of creationism? Why or why not?
|
The actual formation of the claim is irrelevant. It's still a claim. An ideology. It's got no basis of evidence to back it up.
Evolution is not a claim. What evolution is is an expression of a body of observation. The theory of evolution is an expression of a picture that these points draw. It is in no way designed by us other than as a perfect expression of repeatable evidence. When we say "evolution" it's like saying "person" when we look at a portrait. It's a description of what the underlying bits draw.
Claims like ID, regardless of their source or the actual components of the actors in the claim, are mental constructs without peer review or an emperical basis and which can not be agreed upon (and in fact, are not agreed upon across world religions).
When ID is a description of a body of evidence and not wishful thinking then it can come out of the poetry/theology courses and into scientific courses. I wish people could see how dark and ugly this intelligent design approach is. Science brings so much wonder to the world that we can all share in. It brings people closer together and connects us more to a true realization of our nature.
ID is an ideology that takes this sense of wonder and discards it. It doesn't matter what form it takes or what goddess/god is involved. It is not "the other side of the argument" or "valuable in the scientific classroom" or "a valid theory supported by evidence."
Evolution is not an argument. It is a body of repeatable observation and evidence. ID is an attempt to shove literal interpretations of mythology into the scientific community while denying them the same rigorous testing that all other assertions must undergo.