Posted on 01/06/2005 7:39:47 AM PST by PatrickHenry
|
Otherwise known as the, "If-ignorance-isn't-bliss-then-I-don't-know-what-is" theory.
> Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being, and is not creationism, the school district said in its response
Well, good. Then I can assume they'll be teaching the Raelian view, then, yes?
Not necessarily. ID could include design by highly advanced aliens. Proponents of ID are usually inferring God, granted, but teaching that the complicated world we see could have been designed doesn't necessarily limit this designer to be God. Of course any alien able to seed and build the world as we know it is by all practicable purposes "God" from our perspective.
> Proponents of ID are usually inferring God
Or Allah. Let's not ignore the fact that perhaps most of the Creationists in the world are Muslim.
And THIS is what upsets you? The teacher isn't even going to explain what ID is... much less teach it. S/he'll just offer students the opportunity to learn something outside of the classroom. I'm sorry. I can't see a mere twenty-second suggestion of optional outside-of-class not-for-credit work could possibly infringe on someone's freedom of religion.
"The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on December 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state."
There is so much wrong with that, I hardly know where to start with it. For one thing, ID doesn't neccessarily invoke a supreme being, so it is nothing short of misleading to assert that it is limited to biblical creationism.
Secondly, and perhaps this is the more important problem, the 'wall of separation between church and state' has become not only 'high and impenetrable' it has become so broad that it is quite arguably useless.
Unless of course, one side of the body-politic uses it to stifle another.
Omar.
""Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance,...
...Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being,... the school district said in its response"
So, an "intelligent being" who is powerful enough to create the natural world is NOT a "supernatural being"?
So who/what does ID suppose was behind it - Superman?
This is just another attempt to force a particular religion down the public's throat.
"Otherwise known as the, "If-ignorance-isn't-bliss-then-I-don't-know-what-is" theory."
LMAO!
"Not necessarily. ID could include design by highly advanced aliens. Proponents of ID are usually inferring God, granted, but teaching that the complicated world we see could have been designed doesn't necessarily limit this designer to be God. Of course any alien able to seed and build the world as we know it is by all practicable purposes "God" from our perspective."
Good point. Yet, I'm positive that if someone taught ID in a public school and taught that perhaps Martians seeded the Earth with DNA, the Christian right would go absolutely bonkers in protest.
I'm also reminded of several "Star Trek - TNG" episodes by your post.
Of course... then one would immediately conclude that the highly advanced alien civilization must be even more advanced and complex than ours... so complex that it must have been created by an even more intelligent being.
You just can't rationalize ID without the G word... even if you can teach ID without mentioning it.
It will be interesting. I've had classes where the teachers were forced to stick something that they opposed in the curriculum. Not pretty.
You might want to think this one through befor trying to defend it. There's a little, but important, piece missing from your logic.
Assuming it is designed, our world seems to be the work of a "C" student.
Anything that annoys the evil Anti Christian Lawyers Union is by definition a good thing. They are always wrong.
I think that they should point out that the designer was rather incompentent. Lots of false starts, propagation of copying errors, etc.
This must be fought tooth and nail within the party. Conservatism cannot be hijacked for a war against reality.
Of course, perhaps the designer was just an incompentent named Forbin whose creations later surpassed her wildest imagination. Why must one suppose the designer is more intelligent than the designed objects?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.