Replies

I am an atheist. My quarrel here is not with theists, or even strict creationists, but with creationists who seek to falsely claim to have an "alternative" scientific theory (as opposed to a belief) that fails to meet the criteria of science or who seek to discredit evolution through lies and misinformation.

*************

I see. I apologize for my assumption.

I have no alternative scientific theory, but I do have belief. I am here because of that belief, and to learn from both sides.

You wrote: "I have no alternative scientific theory, but I do have belief. I am here because of that belief, and to learn from both sides."

Reply:
Is there an "American Judeo-Christian" verity about these questions? Not at all. Muslims devoted to the Qu'ran equally reject evolution. The preference for faith-based government, and missionarism for one particular view, crosses all boundaries. In all times, priests/pastors/mullahs/monks have tried to capture the power of government to promote their own agendas.

But the issue about 'intelligent design' is not just a matter of personal belief. It is a question of public policy. Is 'intelligent design' a good idea to promote? Or does it repress scientific, human inquiry? I recently tutored a student in chemistry, and there are complex ideas about molecular orbitals, but I think the important point is that there are complex ideas, and we can't ignore them by saying "God did it."

Personal belief in astrology is neither a good basis for international relations nor for family finances. Public displays of religiosity/piety are about power, not about spiritualness or social responsibility.

Personal beliefs and good public policy are not the same.

I have no alternative scientific theory, but I do have belief. I am here because of that belief, and to learn from both sides.

The problem is that the "two sides" of this issue aren't whether one accepts evolution or theistic creationism, but whether one views the world through logic and evidence or through feelings and hope.

It is possible to join these two "sides", as the Catholic church has done, and declare basically that God created the science, and by definition science and God cannot contradict one another. This means they have to interpret Genesis rather loosely, which is a problem for many modern fundamentalists who have been taught that the Bible is literally true. But the advantage is that they only have to bend their reading of the Bible, vs. Biblical literalists which have to bend any rational view of reality itself.