"Don't go to church and talk about science, and don't discuss your religion when doing biology."
You'd think that this was self-evident, but the Discovery Institute obviously doesn't get it.
What about discussing philosophy while doing biology? That is what Dawkins is doing as he discusses the diferences between ape and man. Despite the similarities, it is a fact that the ape is anthropoid, not human, the gap between them being precisely what distinguishes the beast from man. a fact that evolutionists must deal with is that there are no evolutionists who are apes. Accepting evolution as true, the common ancestor of man and ape is so remote that no postive trail can be discerned. The "missing link" dilemma is a kind of caricatire of the facts, but the scarcity of intermediate forms requires a leap of faith.
You'd think that this was self-evident, but the Discovery Institute obviously doesn't get it.
So you think the slack-jawed slope-headed Dawkins really ought to STFU about atheism when teaching biology. Or is Darwinism one of those one-way street religions like Islamo-fascism.
This attitude that religion has nothing to do with science, and science (though it proports to explain everything...) goes straight back to Emanuel Kant, and is the root of liberal lunacy. Put religious over there in that box, don't let it influence real life, and everything will be fine.
Marxists and Fascists alike agreed. Religion was at best used to manipulate people, not something to base life on.
All the great ancient universities were founded by the religious, and even the philosophy that says nature has objective laws that can be discovered (i.e. SCIENCE) is demonstrably from a religious root...that a stable law-giving God made a stable, law-abiding universe.
The whole frantic reaction against someone just putting what can be merely theistic evolution (that God guided evolution) -- on to more specifically creationist models (Intelligent Design is from it foundation a umbrella movement) is evidence of the philosophical, non-scientific basis of much of the professional scientific establisment...
No scientist objected when Carl Sagan (or Dawkins) put atheistic religious dogma into their "science" but let the religious say that just to believe in God says you MUST believe He made the universe--and "ohhh noooooooo! The Muja-Hadin fundamentalists are taking over!!!"
Make no mistake about it, if one is a Christian, Jew or even just a theist, you by your very nature, believe in Intelligent Design.
Either God made the world or He didn't. If He didn't, there simply is no God worthy of any sort of devotion or worship.
Thank God for our Intelligent Designer.