[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

I’m inclined to consider the entire subject more apropos for a survey of religions and belief systems class.

A distinction between all these different belief systems and hard, replicable true science would go a long way toward making the whole discussion more honest.

And where there are historical proofs, such as the finding of Sodom, of the submerged Egyptian chariots circa the Exodus, etc. then let them be considered historial proofs, yet not science.

[webstersII]

“A distinction between all these different belief systems and hard, replicable true science would go a long way toward making the whole discussion more honest.”

Good point. I personally believe in ID but do not consider it based on science because it cannot be tested in any scientific way. But the same is true of Evolution.

[Caramelgal]

I’m inclined to consider the entire subject more apropos for a survey of religions and belief systems class.

A distinction between all these different belief systems and hard, replicable true science would go a long way toward making the whole discussion more honest.

And where there are historical proofs, such as the finding of Sodom, of the submerged Egyptian chariots circa the Exodus, etc. then let them be considered historial proofs, yet not science.

Like it or not, Archeology is a scientific discipline and subjected to the same objective scientific methods as any other scientific discipline.

You may wish to relegate the discussions of all the relative merits of all the possible theories of who the “intelligent designer” is or was to what you call “a survey of religions and belief systems class” (what in academia is referred to as “Comparative Religion” or “Theology” or “Philosophy” or “Ethical” studies) and rightly so because that’s just were such discussions belong – because these spiritual arguments really have no place in a Biology class. But if you are going to propose ID as a relevant and alternate scientific biological theory and subject to the scientific method, then you just can’t ignore the very basic question of who or what is or was the “designer” – where did he or she or it come from, who designed the designer and what is his or her or it’s nature – is it singular or plural? Is the theory of one possible intelligent designer superior to another and why? These are answers that science doesn’t wish or choose to answer. These are questions best left to theologians and even atheists to debate among one another in some forum but not in the science classroom.

And the archeological discovery of an ancient city like Sodom, referenced in the Bible, gives the Bible no more credence as a scientific text book as does the discovery of the ancient city of Troy gives Greek mythology equal credence as a scientific text. The Bible references many historical places and historical events but doesn’t once mention the city of Troy but that doesn’t mean that Troy didn’t exist historically.

And without further investigation, the finding of a single chariot wheel at the bottom of the Red Sea is not alone substantive proof of the story of Exodus. Of course if you already firmly believe that Exodus is an irrefutable historical fact without any need for further evidence, then this finding only buttresses your beliefs and any discovery to the contrary is going to be dismissed by you as false and irrelevant. And isn’t that the same argument that the ID’ers and creationists use against evolutionary theory? But I would submit that evolutionary theory has “evolved” to some extent and expanded due to an open and honest and sometimes very spirited debate among evolutionary biologists given additional empirical evidence that doesn’t dismiss the original theory in it’s entirety but may either prove or modify some of it’s earlier premises.

It is rather obvious that you already have the firm and unmovable belief that it is the God of Abraham who is the “intelligent designer” of your ID theory. I say this because you affirm and firmly believe that “historial proofs”, mentioning Sodom and Exodus, and making your belief system more “honest” and scientifically and historically provable over all and every other possible creation theory.

I really have no axe to grind with you on what you choose to believe in spiritually or what religion you choose to follow. I defend your right to exercise your religious beliefs freely under our Constitution. But I do have a problem with theology and in particular that one specific theological belief being forcibly taught as “scientific fact” when there is no basis in fact to substantiate that your religious belief is more scientifically provable than any other. If you really need science to substantiate your belief then perhaps your belief isn’t all that strong to begin with.

And even the most ardent supporters of Evolution, some of whom, but not all of whom are also Atheists (even Dawkins), are not demanding that science and Evolution and Atheism be taught in your Sunday school classes as a religious theory equal to your religious beliefs as some religious creationists and ID’ers are demanding that their religiously based creationism and ID theories have to be given an equal voice in the science classroom.