Replies

I noticed this in the article:

The institute [Discovery Institute] also is perhaps the nation's leading proponent of intelligent design - the idea that life is too complex to have occurred without the help of an unknown, intelligent being.
It pushed this view through grants to teachers and scientists, including Michael J. Behe, professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. The Institute receives millions of dollars from philanthropists and foundations dedicated to discrediting Darwin's theory.

In other words: NGO!

This is a motive to put a wedge and break apart the strength of the conservatives.

Our targets are our symbols of strength, richness, and our power. That comes from our science and technology. If this is compromised, we will fall like the towers.

Everyone should have faith. This keeps us morally above the animal. But if we lose our science, we lose one of our strengths.

If a creationist arguement is made by a "think tank" funded by people who are specifically looking for faults in the theory or teachings of evolution than that is dogma, not science. If the mirror image occurs, an evolutionist arguement is made by a group funded by anti-Christian groups or individuals, that is real science and a good use of funds.

But what really makes me snicker some times is the urgency of winning the evolution arguement. It is as if the continued existance of questions on evolution is a threat to civilization.

There have been a number of cases of fraud on the part of those desperately trying to prove the theory. The research money and publishing audience is much sparser on the creationist side and so the evolution side usually gets in the first licks. Then the science catches up and the proof is disproven and disgraced. Worse, the evidentiary drawings and pictures are finally taken out of text books, if at all, 20 or 50 years after being deiscredited even among the evolutionists.

On the other hand many arguements are made for creation by non-scientists before the science has matured enough to support the arguement. This results in a broad brush being used on the whole philosophy to paint it as anti-science. Sort of like "they did to Galileo and now they are doing it again!"

The truth will be known, whether both sides actually want the truth or not. If evolution is true then it just does not matter much what we believe or learn here. Most of us anyway. If there is a creator then the evolutionists' demand that this possibility be kept from students at all costs would eventually be shown to be the height of hubris.