You made some excellent points! I agree that God is far more sophisticated than our concepts of Him.
You are correct that biology is singled out by people of faith for questioning to a degree not found in physics, chemistry, geology, or other sciences. You suggest that this is because of a political agenda by a small group of sectarians, and in a sense you are correct. However, I would add a few things! :-)
The fact that Christians rarely, if ever, question most scientific disciplines should be taken as evidence that Christians, even fundamentalists, aren't anti-science. Evolution, however, touches upon the essential spiritual nature of human life. Were we created in the Image of God, or are we just the result of chemical processes which just happen to work the way they do, without God having anything to do with it?
Teaching evolution is fine with me, and with most people. It may be true, though it can never be proven, and I have doubts about it. But it's a fine theory as theories go. I just don't think it's dogma.
Science entertains ideas all the time that would be forbidden if the rules used to exclude ID were applied across the board. The ACLU wouldn't go roaring into court to ban discussion of life in other galaxies or parallel universes in science class. Can you falsify the assertion that there are parallel universes? Can you subject a claim that life exists in a galaxy 30,000,000 light years away to the scientific method? Heck, the ACLU wouldn't object if they brought a witch into class to explain the science of casting spells.
In addition, scientific facts that liberals find upsetting are routinely exorcised from science curricula. I've mentioned many times here that there's a large body of scientific evidence indicating that men are on average better at math than women. Yet, that fact won't ever make it into any textbook. If a teacher told his class about this fact he'd be fired, with the ACLU among those demanding his scalp. What about homosexuality? Is it normal? No school system today would dare say it isn't, no matter what biology may tell us.
I'm not for censoring science. I'm just noting that it's often done by the left with no outcry from the science organizations that claim there's a "war against science" if someone merely suggests that the theory of evolution isn't a proven fact.
I don't particularly care if the Behe ID idea is taught in schools or not, though it's none of the federal courts' business if it is. Most Americans would, I think, be satisfied if science would just abide by its own rules, rather than playing lip service to them. It really wouldn't hurt anything to have a discussion about science's limitations in science class. It wouldn't involve censorship, as the demands of feminists, gays, and egalitarians often do. Spend a little time discussing the fact that science says nothing, one way or the other, about the existence of God. It's true, isn't it? But it won't happen, because it would hamper the agenda of the ACLU and others who see science, particularly evolution, as a tool to be used against religion. And that's where the real political agenda lies.
I'm not for censoring science. I'm just noting that it's often done by the left with no outcry from the science organizations that claim there's a "war against science" if someone merely suggests that the theory of evolution isn't a proven fact.
I believe you ARE for censoring science. Censorship is not only the removal of information; it also includes selectively distorting information. Oh, and a scientific theory is never a fact. None of them are.
Spend a little time discussing the fact that science says nothing, one way or the other, about the existence of God. It's true, isn't it? But it won't happen, because it would hamper the agenda of the ACLU and others who see science, particularly evolution, as a tool to be used against religion. And that's where the real political agenda lies.
Evolution has not been a political tool used against religion. It's been used by religion. And a small segment, at that.
I can't comment (because I don't know) the situation in the US, but we have plenty of tussles from leftists attempting (and too often managing) to introduce 'political correctness' into educational curricula over here. It is far more apparent in the humanities and 'soft' sciences (psych, sociology, &c) rather than the core sciences (biology, physics, earth sciences, &c). Darwin is no more 'controversial' here than Newton; the weight of evidence supporting the neo-Darwinian ToE is just too massive and compelling.
Spend a little time discussing the fact that science says nothing, one way or the other, about the existence of God. It's true, isn't it?
But then why not 'spend a little time' discussing that science says nothing about which music you should prefer, or why Tristram Shandy is a great book, or why original Star Trek was superior to Next Generation (or is it the other way around), &c. &c.?
And/or: should there also be a matching 'disclaimer' in every philosophy class or comparative religion class stating that 'philosophy can state nothing, one way or another, about the actual age of the earth,' or 'religion can state nothing about the chemical processes involved in photosynthesis'. Gets silly pretty fast.
It's a whole lot easier to simply teach the scientific method, which is rational investigation of the material world--anything else is out of scope. And--judging by some of the postings even in this present thread--some folks have never been taught the absolute basics of that scientific method.
But it won't happen, because it would hamper the agenda of the ACLU and others who see science, particularly evolution, as a tool to be used against religion. And that's where the real political agenda lies.
As a foreigner, I'm reluctant to comment here as well, though your Dover case received quite a bit of press coverage here, and I've read the trial transcript. And the question must be: what political agenda "against religion"? It was the school board attempting to introduce elements the court determined were religious, not scientific, into the curriculum that (unfortunately) got the ACLU involved. It wasn't a case of anyone attempting to introduce science into churches! It really does look far more like an agenda by a religious group that is genuinely threatened by science; and it is an American phenomenon, just not an issue elsewhere.
I'm just noting that it's often done by the left with no outcry from the science organizations
This is not true at all. In fact, it was through scientific skeptic journals that I learned what the left was doing to science. Those journals helped push me to the right.