[jlogajan]

Many of those groups say that they are not pushing to place a divine creator back into science books, but to show that Darwin's theory is far from a perfect explanation of the origin of mankind.

What a bunch of liars. "Liars for Christ", I call 'em.

[CobaltBlue]

"Liars for Christ" is a good one.

After watching the evolution vs. creationism debate played out many times over the years, it appears to me that the sole factor that tips the balance is the percentage of fundamentalists that are in on the decision-making process.

I don't think very many school board members are coming to the table without already having an opinion on the matter.

I haven't labored in the trenches as long as some on this thread have, but it's crystal clear to me that the vast majority of creationists are fundamentalist literalists who believe that the fossil record is due to one of the following:

1. Put here by the Devil to fool mankind; OR
2. Put here by God to test mankind; OR
3. Can be explained entirely by the Noachian flood.

Of evolutionists, I believe that the majority believe in theistic creation, that is, that God created the universe in a way that can be explained by scientific methods, and a minority are agnostics or atheists.

In the Red Zone, creationists outnumber evolutionists. In the Blue Zone, evolutionists outnumber creationists.

The "swing votes" are theistic evolutionists who are persuaded by the "arguments" of Intelligent Design, namely, that some things are too complicated to be explained by present day scientific knowledge and therefor MUST NOT have happened by chance and therefore are ipso facto evidence of Intelligent Design.

These tend to be the same type of people who subscribe to Biblical Archeology and are fascinated by attempts to prove that biblical events actually happened.

In other words, they want science AND the Bible to be compatible, and don't question the fallacious arguments advanced on behalf of Intelligent Design.

[metacognative]

You're a mean guy. Must be an atheistic Darwnite. OK, nobody tell him Michael Denton's "Theory in Crisis" was not wrtten by a christan.

[Stultis]

What a bunch of liars. "Liars for Christ", I call 'em.

Not all of them are equally obtuse. Michael Behe, who is mentioned in the article, has said that he has no real problem with common descent (that diverse, and possibly all, biological organisms are ultimately connected by normal reproduction). Behe believes that an "intelligent designer" is only required as the author of certain key adaptations at the microscopic or molecular level.

I've talked (years ago, long before ID came on the scene) with another figure mentioned in the article, Ray Bohlin (then of Probe Ministries in Dallas). He agreed with me that the leaders of a local creationist organization, which he was lecturing to, taught their followers great heaping piles of nonsense. He didn't tell them that, naturally, but he did gently correct common creationist misrepresentations of punctuated equilibrium. He privately told me that he considered it "entirely possible" that common descent is "substantially correct".

Back in the day, when ICR founder Henry Morris (to a large extent) ran the creationist movement, wielding an iron fist in favor of strict biblical literalism, these ID'ers would have been loudly denounced as heritics and "compromisers".

Although it is vacous scientifically, the ID movement is a brilliant strategic ploy as it allows the (still more numerous) strict creationists to work with more "reasonable" and sophisticated "God of the gaps" types, and put them forward in venues like textbook hearings as a more publicly palatable supplement to fulminating fundamentalists.

[VadeRetro]

What a bunch of liars. "Liars for Christ", I call 'em.

Prophecy fulfilled in spades, ruffles and flourishes, oak-leaf cluster. Big time.