[holidayidol]

Actually the censorship seems to be on the other side. Creationists want to censor an entire field of scientific study because their particular brand of divine revelation leads them to different answers. Are you serious?! Do you really think that is what's happening? In the Dover scenario, it's all about one paragraph being inserted into an otherwise untouched science book, chock-full of the revised-upon-revised theory of evolution. This one paragraph mentions that there are alternative opinions to specific aspects of the theory of evolution...and evolutionists are screaming bloody murder. Evolutionists are trying to censor the ONE paragraph that mentions alternative opinions exist. And you're considering THIS as censorship by Creationists?!

[Coyoteman]

I wrote: Actually the censorship seems to be on the other side. Creationists want to censor an entire field of scientific study because their particular brand of divine revelation leads them to different answers.

You replied: Are you serious?! Do you really think that is what's happening? In the Dover scenario, it's all about one paragraph being inserted into an otherwise untouched science book, chock-full of the revised-upon-revised theory of evolution. This one paragraph mentions that there are alternative opinions to specific aspects of the theory of evolution...and evolutionists are screaming bloody murder. Evolutionists are trying to censor the ONE paragraph that mentions alternative opinions exist. And you're considering THIS as censorship by Creationists?!

From "The Wedge Strategy" of the Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture:

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions [emphasis added].

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

So, to answer your question, yes I do think that this is censorship by Creationists. They are attempting to defeat or overthrow (in other words, censor) the scientific method as used by science in general and evolution in particular in favor of a "Christian" and "theistic" and "non-materialist" worldview (i.e., the Christian religion).

You don't really think this is about advancing science, do you? Or about advancing the creation stories found in the world's approximately 4,200 other religions?

[Ichneumon]

Do you really think that is what's happening? In the Dover scenario, it's all about one paragraph being inserted into an otherwise untouched science book, chock-full of the revised-upon-revised theory of evolution. This one paragraph mentions that there are alternative opinions to specific aspects of the theory of evolution...and evolutionists are screaming bloody murder.

Because that's not *all* it does. Dishonest much?

Evolutionists are trying to censor the ONE paragraph that mentions alternative opinions exist.

Nice misrepresentation you've got there. Someday, I hope to meet an *honest* creationist.

And you're considering THIS as censorship by Creationists?!

Yes. Because it is. And because it's a deeply dishonest and error-filled paragraph, which lies to students about science, and does so for dishonest purposes: