[Right Wing Professor]

Well, since Dembski believes that ID is scientifically accurate, and since he believes in God, you can put two and two together as well as I can. What you can't do is make the realistic claim that because a proponent of a particular theory has a religious view surrounding it, any teaching of the theory in a public school is thus tainted as a church/state violation.

You didn't respond to my question. Name a generally accepted scientific theory that has a 'religious view surrounding it'

ID is religion in a cheap tuxedo. The scam is blown, largerly because of the words of its proponents. It's not a scientific theory, it's a proseytizing mechanism for fundamentalist protestants. Dembski says so. I believe him.

[DC Bound]

By your logic, if an evolutionist admitted he felt liberated in life because evolution allowed him to not have to worry about God, then his science supporting evolution would be questionable.

Your challenge to produce a generally accepted scientific theory that has an religious view surrounding it is evolution in two ways.

First, critics allege evolutionism is itself a religion (and if you study what makes a belief set a religion, it fits just as well as American Civil Religion and any number of other non-theistic religions.)

Second, in that evolution is surrounded by religion due to the exact scenario I started this post with. You have no doubt come across people who are athiests who support their atheism by their belief in evolution, which makes God unnecessary. Does their atheism disqualify them from being evolutionists? Does it alone make their claims invalid? Obviously not. It is up to the ID side to prove them wrong. And it is up to your side to prove ID wrong.

[inquest]

You didn't respond to my question. Name a generally accepted scientific theory that has a 'religious view surrounding it'

Your question has nothing to do with the "point" you were attempting to make, which is that teaching it in public schools is somehow a church/state violation. Any theory can be thought of by some people as supporting their religion. There are certainly plenty of atheists who see Darwinism that way.

It's not a scientific theory, it's a proseytizing mechanism for fundamentalist protestants. Dembski says so.

Liar. He did not say that it wasn't a scientific theory. That's why you guys are losing this public debate. You simply can not address the issue honestly.