Replies

ID in science classes is the logical and incorrect solution to the real problem, the teaching of history in science classes.

The science of mutations, and of selection of preferable over inferior structures, has been co-opted by those who disdain God as an alternative explanation of the history of the world.

So, far from "protecting" science from religion, in many cases science textbooks are full of "best-guess" historical speculation as to what happened before there were people to observe and record it.

And this is no more evident than each time a textbook has to be revised, NOT because a NEW THEORY better explains a previous theory based on scientific experimentation and discovery, but simply because someone digging a hole somewhere finds some new "fact" which unfortunately proves the existing speculation of history to be false.

In other words, our science classes have been taken over by those who dispise the notion of having to credit God with our existance. They have done so by pretending to be representing "science" when in fact they are merely revisionist historians, making up fanciful theories of our existance and pre-existance which, while "compatable" with known scientific theory, is not a necessary consequence of it.

In other words, the scientific notion of mutation, selection, and speciation is consistent with, but does not dictate, a particular historical myth.

If tomorrow we discovered that, in fact, God did create the world 8000 years ago, the theory of evolution would stand intact, a known fact based on years of careful scientific scrutiny.

But the historical fiction woven around the theory which is now taught as science in our science classrooms would, of course, be rendered moot. Just like so many "charts" of the history of man have been found to be false as we do more "historical" evaluation and find more forensic (not scientific) evidence.

But the scientific community fails to make this distinction, or meet the religious community halfway based on this truth, and instead insists on forcing a historical myth which opposes many people's religious beliefs down their throats as "proven scientific fact", when it is no such thing. And the religious people, content to allow science to have its theories, balks at having it's religions stolen or denigrated with speculation.

So it fights back with Intelligent Design, which is not only truly science (but is as scientific as those charts showing the piltdown man) but may not in fact correspond to the truth of our existance.

If God exists, and has the power and the inclination to interfere in the normal functioning of our planet, that presense would, by definition, be outside the realm of true scientific theory (since by its nature it presumes God making things happen that would NOT happen by the normal means that our science describes).

But, presuming the above, Science -- which could not show the interference -- would also not disprove it, or be able to correctly predict all future events, or correctly describe the past. Because Science could not predict or explain any interaction God may choose to carry out in the future, or show where such interaction happened in the past.

To boil it down to a cartoon version of the argument: If God decided to create the world 8000 years ago, but wanted to disguise his act so that people had to BELIEVE in him, rather than having his existance proven to them such that they had no choice, he could well have created the universe such that all observation would lead to what we see today.

A scientist would rightly point out that this is no scientific argument, because how can I scientifically argue for the deception of science. But, that scientist can also not, through science, disprove my theory. And since they can't, science should not preach as fact an alternative to my theory, and say that it is in fact the SCIENTIFICALLY correct story.

Being the cartoon-version, the last paragraph is easily parodied and belittled, but it is presented only to illuminate, not for its detractors to pretend as they often do that it is the sum total of the argument.

Thank god that a writer I respect has finally stood up and actually come out in favor of science over magical thinking.
As a Christian, I believe every bit of the Bible. But I still don't want it taught as science. If an experiment could be designed that disproved the hand of a "designer" in the origin of life, does that mean all the ID people would stop believing God created Man? And if such an experiment cannot be designed, then ID is not in the realm of science.
I understand that to get back some semblance of power as a party, we had no choice but to bring the evangelicals onboard. But I'm not ready to hand the entire agenda over to them, the way the Dems have allowed the far left to take the wheel.
And "William Demski?" Please. He is to science what Barbara Streisand is to serious political journalism.