Marc, we understand exactly why these bills are introduced. They are introduced because creationists want to put their propaganda into science classes as if it were real science. And they have no compunctions about lying to get their way (as seen in the Dover case - and in your post).
They understand perfectly what it was about. It’s about a double standard. Fragmented, partial hypothesis of how life naturalistically arose from non life is considered science because it’s atheist friendly, while the comparably fragmented, partial scientific challenges to Darwinism called ID is not atheist friendly, so it’s blocked by the courts.
In fact abiogenesis is seen as scientific because it is a valid scientific research program that is making progress. Abiogenesis researchers don't expect their hypotheses to be accepted just because they favour certain philosophical or religious views - and they aren't. If there were a good scientific alternative to abiogenesis it might be relegated to a cranky fringe group - but there isn't.
ID on the other hand is far LESS scientific than abiogenesis. It doesn't have anything like the record of research or success. And it does not lack for scientific opposition - it is up against a massively successful scientific theory with a huge body of work. Even if ID managed to get to the stage where abiogenesis is now (and there's no reason to believe that it can) it would still not be able to supplant evolution because evolution is in a far stronger position.
So in reality there is no double standard. ID just doesn't measure up.
The real reasons for the bills are not found in the falsehoods - but in the reasons why such obvious falsehoods are said and believed. The conflict is entirely about a religious group seeking to impose it's will on the nation, in defiance of both the Constitution and the truth. It's already close enough to what you claim about evolution and it's acceptance to justify at least the suspicion that much of what you say is projection.
Why is it that if ONE person refers to religious people’s involvement in ID, then all of ID is about religion, yet if an evolutionary leader/biologist like Dawkins says evolution is about atheism, it’s only one person’s opinion? Dawkins never gives anything away, does he?
But that isn't what happens is it ? You claimed that the motivation for getting ID into science classes was religious in nature. You claimed to speak for others not just yourself. And let's be honest your other reasons are simply indefensible conspiracy theories.
The situation is simple. Science is in conflict with your religion. Therefore you demand special privileges for your religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution and good education. And you wonder why people oppose you ?
I never intended to imply that the scientific community had it perfectly right a hundred years ago, but I suppose I did, so I’ll clarify. I actually feel that change over time, changes within kinds etc. did and does have a place in science. The scales have tipped from one extreme to the other — too much religion 100 years ago, too much atheism today.
So you think that science should seek a religious balance, rather than actually following it's own principles - and the evidence ? THat is certainly an odd attitude.
But what about the atheists who see it as an issue of atheism versus religion? The Noble prize winners who say science has a responsibility to weaken religion? That doesn’t bother you at all?
It certainly bothers me less than you do ! Whatever they really said - and you've enough of a record of making false accusations that no honest person should trust you on this - I find it hard to believe that it could be more worrying than a group of hatemongers setting out to destroy the protections of the U.S. constitution and sabotage science education.
Have you ever heard of Bradley Monton? He claims to be an atheist, and wrote a book on why ID should be in science classes. Here is the book at amazon, with a few brief reviews if you care to check it out.
If Monton has some good arguments you could use them here instead of your crazy conspiracy theories. See how they stand up.
In addition to the 93% figure above, I believe there are other figures that show that members of the National Academy of Sciences and other scientific groups including college professors vote for Democrats about 90% of the time. I think it might be time for you to consider the fact that the scientific community is made up of humans like all the rest of us, and shouldn’t be given a free pass to make important social decisions without going through the political process like anyone else has to. And that an often bent court system that’s evolved to something far beyond the founders wildest nightmares isn’t getting it done.
In other words you think that science should be placed under political control to prevent it reaching conclusions you don't like - while those on your side should be able to override the Constitution to impose their will on the people. This is a recipe for tyranny.
Not that simple. Science is controlled by people with a naturalistic worldview. It’s equivalent to religion. Its establishment in public education makes it in violation of the First Amendment.
You've admitted that all the bills are inspired by a desire to distort science classes to favour uor religious beliefs. You can't come up with any other good arguments as to why ID belongs in science classes so it really does seem that that is all there is to it.
It is your argument that is simplistic. Science isn't not inherently atheistic. Many believers accept the findings of science - including evolution. Some even write popular books promoting the compatibility of their brand of Christianity with science. It's quite odd that you don't seem to notice those books at all.
It really seems that the only " patheism" in science that you are really worried about is science that contradicts the beliefs of your sect.
As has already been pointed out, the way to correct a real violation of the First Amendment is no to mandate another violation, even more egregious than the first. The remedy is to stop the violation. All you would have to do is to show that evolution is not valid science or that there is no valid secular reason for teaching it in schools and it would be withdrawn. Unfortunately for you, it's rather easier to spout crazy falsehoods on a website than it is to get a court to accepts them. The fact that you don't want to follow the correct course is a pretty clear sign that even you don't believe what you were saying.
There was no atheist organization in the U.S. founders time. They couldn’t see organized atheism as a worldview complete with all the closed mindedness, rituals, and desire to dominate people who don’t share their faith as religion sometimes can. A worship of the earth (environmentalism, global warming etc) and a strong faith in big government is a big part of their rituals and domination.
And no rational person sees that even now, because it's a delusion invented by Far right "Christians" (more like Satanists if you ask me) angry that their domination is being challenged. Let us not forget that you are the one who wants to increase government power in this case. It's all about getting your own way -by whatever means are handy. You're not concerned about being dominated - you are angry that YOUR desire for domination is being thwarted.
I am mainly going to reply to the parts addressing my post.
Then you should be smart enough to specify the other scientific disciplines that had to face that entrance exam (court case), complete with dates and court case names. If you can’t, then my statement is 100% true. And I know you can't, so that's that.
Of course we don't have to agree with your falsehood. ID only faced a legal challenge because dishonest religiously motivated people - ignoring their own legal advisors in favour of a religiously motivated legal organisation - decepided to force ID into schools. No real science has done that.
I haven’t admitted that at all, you build straw men. I’ve only said that religious people started and promoted the study of ID. Just like atheists started and promoted evolution. Atheists were prompted to do that because of the book Origin of Species. Religious people were prompted to what they did because of recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life.
Then why all the argument about religion? Why do you keep going on about evolution supporting and being supported by atheists? You make it absolutely clear that the religios issue is central to you, and your objections to evolution are rooted in your religios beliefs.
Here’s one that hasn’t really fit into the barrage I’m facing, until now. The assertion that ID is completely religiously inspired is false. The truth is that ID began in the mid 1980’s, at exactly the same time that more and more complexity was being discovered in the simplest forms of life. Yet atheism was remaining in science, there was no open inquiry being conducted into how so much specified order, complexity and purposive results were present in the cell. In Behe’s words;
That would be the same Behe who now accepts common descent over millions of years ? But his quote does not support you, since it neither gives dates for the discoveries, nor does it support your assertion that there was no "open enquiry"
And of course, you ignore the evidence in the Dover case. As we know the ID textbook involved started life as a creationist textbook. However, while it was being written, the teaching of creationism in schools was found to be unconstitutional and the term "intelligent design" was used as a direct substitution for "creation" - even retaining the same definition.
These things and more really began coming to light at exactly the same time ID began taking shape. More and more complexity is being discovered to this day, and yet the mantra goes on exactly the same in the enraged scientific community. It doesn’t matter how ordered it is, it fell together gradually, by happenstance processes. And that mindset closes more exploration than it opens.
Obviously cosmological studies have Virtually no effect on biology at all, so fine tuning arguments don't make any difference to the teaching of evolution. And I don't see that jumping to the conclusion of a designer opens up more possibilities than it closes down.
I notice, I read Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God about 5 years ago. He showed no knowledge of Christianity whatsoever.
Which only tells us that you have a very limited view of Christianity,
I never used the word that you put in quotes. Just trying to mislead lurkers, aren't you?
Nope, it's nothing more than an obvious typo. I suppose that you have to pretend that everyone else is as bad as you, but the constant stream of false accusations you rely on becomes very wearing.
Not evolution, its definition is too slippery. It’s only change over time whenever its atheism and assumptions are questioned. Abiogenesis, the PAH world hypothesis would be something easier to expose for what it is, but it would still take millions of dollars and a court case. The money isn’t there. (yet)
Rubbish. You could go after the actual content of textbooks easily enough. Why not the age of the Earth since you seem to object to that? It'd be easy to find textbooks saying that the earth is billions of years old or that the dinosaurs lived tens of millions of years ago. In fact you would HAVE it go after the actual content of textbooks. If the PAH world hypothesis isn't in actual texts used in schools any attack on it would be a stupid irrelevance.
And why the money worries? The Thomas More Law Center took the Dover case for free, and there are plenty of other "Christian" organisations that would like to influence the curriculum. If you had a good case, the money seems to be there. But apparently your side prefers political sneaking around to an honest challenge in the courts.
I knew when I joined this thread in an attempt to answer the questions in the opening message, that my answers would be met with opposition. Yet no matter how much evolutionists disagree with the reasons people have for introducing ID bills, the reasons are what they are.
And the reasons are religious above all. If ID was really science there wouldn't be any need to mention atheism at all, yet you go on and on about it. You wouldn't need to rely on falsehoods and nutty conspiracy theories either. But you do.
Many people see the scientific community’s opposition to ID as a jealous guarding of the status quo, and there’s plenty of common sense evidence that makes that clear.
And there are plenty of biased people like you who think that THEIR beliefs should get special exemption from the tests. Who seem to think that lying and cheating and breaking the law is just fine when it comes to getting THEIR propaganda into schools.
The cartoon that I’ve been shown..what, three times in this thread, supposedly shows an orderly, well defined process that an idea must follow to be included in science education. The problem is, that process is governed by imperfect humans, and no, that’s not a projection of the fall from the Bible or anything like that, it’s a simple, secular fact that humans are imperfect, and I don’t’ think any serious evolutionist is going to point to any human organization that’s ever existed and claim that it’s perfect. Organizations are often ‘special interests’, and the scientific community is a special interest.
THis is an extremely foolish argument. First off you were shown the cartoon because you denied that you were asking for special privileges, because you claimed that ID had already passed the tests to be considered science.
More importantly, human imperfection is the reason for the process. It is there to stop errors and inappropriate material creeping into the curriculum. It may not be perfect, but how is short-circuiting it for your favourite ideas a valid response ? Or are you claiming that the people on your side are above human imperfection ?
I and many others don’t believe that defined process is evenly applied. For example, I’ve never been shown that the SETI Institute (considered science, and taught in science classes according to its website) has ever had to go through that line, or show any of its accomplishments as testable, repeatable, or observable.
And yet again we have another vague complaint completely lacking in details. Without knowing what is taught how can you say that it is inappropriate ?
I and many others believe that recent discoveries of the complexities of the simplest forms of life are far more profound than the scientific community will admit, as they attempt to protect the status quo. Those discoveries are troubling to atheists, pure and simple.
Your opinions are, of course, your opinions. They do not entitle your beliefs to the special privileges that you keep demanding.
Claims by evolutionists that we’d all be living in caves without constant thought and application of evolution is blown out of proportion by a special interest, as common sense and verification by some non-politically correct scientists shows.
I don't believe that we have seen any example of such claim. The only like claim was made for science in particular - and since you generalised your attacks to all of science such a response seems far less unreasonable.
Many actions by the scientific community, refusal to publicly re-evaluate fragmented hypothesis of naturalistic origins of life in light of recent scientific discoveries, and the arrogant behavior, the superior attitude that the scientific community and those who represent it often show towards non-scientists are what convince many people that the Dover decision — a decision made by ONE judge — deserves a second look.
The fact that scientists do not bow down and worship you is not a good reason to revisit a court decision. A good reason would be based on the facts, the evidence and the law. By some strange reason the calls for the decision to be revisited seem to ignore those. They only claim that the decision was "wrong" because it wasn't the one that they wanted.
If that makes evolutionists angry, it doesn’t change the fact that that’s how things are. Science isn’t the only source of knowledge, and it doesn’t have special rights to make political decisions in the U.S.
In other words you see nothing wrong with using political power to force your religion into science classes. Which, of course, is exactly why you object to the Dover decision which (correctly) says that you can't.