Intelligent design stirrings

Washington Times ^

[Kokojmudd]

By David Limbaugh Our secular popular culture is throwing a fit over President Bush's endorsement of teaching in public schools the controversies surrounding Darwinian theory. Note that the president did not recommend that the teaching of Darwinism be banned in public schools, merely that the theory of intelligent design (ID) ought to be taught as well. Mr. Bush said, "I think part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought." The main players in the ID movement are not even insisting on that much. Discovery Institute, for example, opposes the mandatory teaching of ID in public schools but favors requiring students to be exposed to criticisms of Darwin's theory. But whether you believe ID theory ought to get equal billing with Darwinian theory, some lesser treatment, or that students should at least be apprised of alleged chinks in the Darwinian armor, what's all the fuss about? Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry? What, then, are they so afraid of regarding the innocuous introduction into the classroom of legitimate questions concerning Darwinism? Their defensiveness toward challenges to their dogma is inexplicable unless you understand their attitude as springing from a worldview steeped in strong, secular predispositions that must be guarded with a blind religious fervor. Indeed, it appears many Darwinists are guilty of precisely that of which they accuse ID proponents: having a set of preconceived assumptions that taint their scientific objectivity. Don't take my word for it. Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard..........

[GrandEagle]

scientific process
Interesting.....

[tallhappy]

Here's evidence that at one time they tried ... and failed.

So you are saying that this:

I've seen enough in the field to realize that quite substantial portions of the geologic record are not the direct result of the Flood.

was a failure?

Are you saying the geological record is due to the flood and the person you cited failed in his conclusion that the geological record is not due to the floood?

Are you a 4000 year old Earth advocate?

[A. Pole]

Mixing religion with science will leave the religion intact, but will bastardize and make useless the science that is being taught.

[Junior_G:] Using science as a tool to promote atheism and to replace the constitutional system will "bastardize and make the science useless".

Schools are not defined by the sciences - they are established by the society to serve the needs of society. Making the science the ultimate authority makes science the established church and changes scientists into priestohood of scientism.

It was already tried in the Soviet Union in form of scientific socialism and historical materialism.

[narby]

I accept that the earth is around 4 billion years old.

I didn't italicize it, but the majority of that post was an excerpt from the link at the top. I didn't write it.

What it tells is about the efforts made by creationist scientists to geologically prove that the earth was young. They failed, and being honest creationists, they changed their view on the age of the earth.

I get an idea that religious people were more open minded about the issue back when they did the research. But over the last few decades there's been lots of preaching that one must believe the Bible literally. That's polarized the issue, meaning that religious people have become a near cult. If your in the cult, it appears powerful and strong. But they're isolated away from the American mainstream that they once were in the center of.