[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

So we’re not just talking about just bringing the idea of ID into the debate about evolution, but a basic restructuring of all scientific disciplines around a premise of supernatural cause.

That's the way it was under Newton and all the giants of science.

When atheist scientists like Dawkins started shooting off their mouths and implying that Darwin disproved God the creator, then they opened up a Pandora's box.

Into that box stepped ID.

Science should have stuck to its knitting (i.e. practical science). Instead it positioned itself as the ultimate source on what is and what isn't real.

[tacticalogic]

That's the way it was under Newton and all the giants of science.

I'll as again, then. Who do you propose to assume the authority of reviewing scientific works for the corect theological references? In Newton's day, the Church enjoyed the political power to claim this authority. How do you intend to go about re-establishing that authority here and now?

[Soliton]

When atheist scientists like Dawkins started shooting off their mouths and implying that Darwin disproved God the creator, then they opened up a Pandora's box. Into that box stepped ID.

No ID stepped in in 1987 as a way around a Supreme Cort ruling. Please review the original post.