"If Intelligent Design IS Creationism, it'd be called Creationism."
Well, it IS, but it's NOT. Intelligent Design is trying to make an end run around the limitations on religious instruction in schools. It's still Creationism, but that trick never works, so they gave it a new name.
Indeed, the book in question in this case started out using the term Creationism in its pages. When that trick didn't work again, as it always fails to work, they edited the book, substituting Intelligent Design for Creationism.
This is why this case is sure to go the Plaintiff's way. It's a poor subterfuge and won't succeed.
I thought creationism was the belief that man and dinosaurs lived together and that the world is only a few thousand years old.
Now it is wrong for people to believe that God had any hand in the existence of the world? Or at least to consider the posibility in an educational setting? How about in "philosophy"?
Sets up the potential situation that atheism (absolute belief that there is no god) can be the defacto state religion. Agnostics are the ones who say "don't know".
Or is the position that it is okay to say that "god may exist but He didn't have any role in everything else"?
It has been shown that evolution has taken, and is indeed taking, place. Why is it offensive to you that many believe God used this evolutionary mechanism to create life and the universe as we know it today?
Scientists have the advantage here. Because every intelligent person has to consider the proofs of evolution as they have been so far "evolved." But of course, scientists are not required to believe in an Intelligent Designer as they attempt to unravel Evolution and develop answers to the many questions it poses.
I don't get where the 'beef' is. How does it harm "Science" if some people choose to believe Evolution is a tool of the Creator in whom we believe? Evolution exists. Intelligent Design is one theory on WHY it exists.
I think those who fight Intelligent Design are belligerent because they think, like you apparently, it is a way to counter Biblical Creationism. Strict Creationists are opposed to admitting the existence of evolution as a life form developmental mechanism. Period.
By fighting Intelligent Design, which does nothing but enhance your position, you are making common cause, in a very weird way, with anti-scientific forces. You want every one to believe there is no God. They want everyone to believe there is a God, but no evolution.
But if you put it in an educational setting, one would certainly want young people to know their science. Many of us would like them to know, or at least be able to speculate, to what end science, and indeed all human knowledge exists.
Creationists and Atheistic Scientists are polar opposites. The young learn nothing from your fight. You think, and with some reason, that God does not belong in the public market place of ideas. But of course, itiseminently fair to teach that some people
The biggest admission by Miller is that evolution is not a fact. It also appears that Miller has not identified anything in the statement of the school board that is incorrect.
I think these admissions/unrefuted statements are significant. I suspect that Miller is not prepared to face a skilled cross-examination where he will actually have to answer the questions asked rather than simply saying what he wants.