Here is what M. Cavanaugh had to say about ther book:
"This book is chilling. It lets one see how totalitarian religious thought can begin to take hold even of a multi-cultural free society. We already knew that religious fundamentalists and many evangelicals think teaching evolutionary principles is not only erroneous, but evil. We knew they objected to teaching evolution in the schools. We knew they had concocted various intellectual constructs to deny the truth of evolution, and we knew that the most recent of these constructs, "Intelligent Design," was subtle and sophisticated enough to attract the attention of many ordinary citizens.
Since 1954, with the founding of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (of which I am the current president), many scientists and religion scholars have countered such claims by enthusiastically accepting mainstream science and exploring the implications for a modern understanding, for example in journals like Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. Our effort has been to affirm the advances of science while preserving the ethical and philosophical insights of traditional religious traditions. And we thought we were doing our part at helping keep the society on track {how ...noble}.
And then comes this book. It shows what we did NOT already know, namely that there is a concerted and organized plan, "The Wedge Strategy," whereby this putative "scientific" construct called Intelligent Design seeks to give itself a patina of respectability, thereby to make politicians look more credible when they try to remove legitimate science from our schools. But there is no mistaking the true goal of this movement—the Discovery Institute, through its Center for Science and Culture, seeks to "renew" American culture through the enshrinement of evangelical religious doctrines as public policy. This is a development that every person interested in the science/religion dialogue needs to be aware of and needs to give serious thought to. It is not just the general wedge strategy that needs to be understood, but the detailed tactical maneuvers as well; thus, this is a book that must be read thoroughly, and not just skimmed. Fortunately it is easy and compelling reading, and many of us will want to put copies in the hands of those in a position—whether academically or politically or otherwise—to make a difference in the future of science education. "
But funny, strange, he, Michael Cavanaugh, wrote a book call 'Biotheology'.
Cavanaugh's book argues God can be fully described simply by looking at natural life. And this leads to Howard Dean, Chairman of the Demonrat Communistic Atheistic Party (excerpting from http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/throck_dean_1_09_04.htm) who said according to LA Times:
..."From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."
Now let’s see what chapter and verse of Holy Writ did Dr. Dean consult to arrive at that conclusion. Genesis? No, that’s where Adam and Eve were created. No gay people there. Leviticus? No, don‘t want to go there. The New Testament? Nothing promising there either. So what’s the basis for Dr. Dean’s theological views?
Here is the argument: if homosexual identity is determined by one’s genes, God must have planned it that way and actually approves it. I’ll evaluate such thinking momentarily but let me pause to note that this premise adds another title to Dr. Dean’s long resume’: biotheologian.
According to Michael Cavanaugh, author of Biotheology,
“in a sentence, biotheology synthesizes biology and theology by deriving the study of God from the study of life…biotheology rejects supernatural explanations.”
. In harmony with this description, biotheologian Dean gleans God’s thoughts on the subject of homosexuality via his interpretation of biology and genetics.
So, connecting dots: leftist Barbara is in court today as an 'expert' about science. She writes a screed against I.D. and loves short haircuts. Her book is given an enthused thumbs up by a Biotheologian, Cavanaugh, who then enshrines leftist thinking about ... oh yes, the gay agenda, and that leads straight to Howard Dean.
Or, it is just all mere conincidence, and all these good folks are really Randians in disguise.
I find a snide implication my opponent is homosexual always stenghtens my argument.
And Behe doesn't?
I suppose you would just want witnesses on the stand that support your case. You wouldn't have to hide your eyes then.
Those dots aren't even in the same galaxy. You derive that opinion on Barbara Forrest, not from anything she said, or even anything the guy who reviewed her book said, but because Warren Throckmorton sarcastically called Haward Dean a biotheologian - that's bizarre.