[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

"But there is irony in the way the media generally follow Barbara Forrest's line in portraying ID as a 'Trojan Horse' for theism. It would be equally accurate to call Darwin a trojan horse for atheism."

How is Darwin a trojan horse for Atheism? Atheism is the belief in the absence of God. Evolution doesn't address how the laws of nature got the way they are. Maybe God did it or maybe he didn't. Evolution doesn't say.

ID'ers start with their literal religious conclusion and then use scientific sounding language to conjure up supporting evidence. That's religion in my book and doesn't belong in science class.

[Zionist Conspirator]

How is Darwin a trojan horse for Atheism? Atheism is the belief in the absence of God. Evolution doesn't address how the laws of nature got the way they are. Maybe God did it or maybe he didn't. Evolution doesn't say.

You obviously haven't read the posted article.

So you're saying the difference between anti-ID Theistic evolutionists and pro-ID Theistic evolutionists is that the former keep their opinions about the Creator to themselves?

ID'ers start with their literal religious conclusion and then use scientific sounding language to conjure up supporting evidence. That's religion in my book and doesn't belong in science class.

ID-ers are Theistic evolutionists. They consider Genesis to be a "metaphor" for a Divinely-guided evolutionary process. And since their anti-ID Theistic evolutionary critics believe the exact same thing, I don't see what they're arguing about.

"Science" deals with the way the world works. Science can speculate all it wants about finch beak variations or "survival of the fittest" or "descent with modification." However, the moment "science" moves from these things to speculation as to how finches came into existence in the first place (by assuming that observable evolution in the fully created universe is the continuation of the creation process itself) it has jumped into metaphysics.

No theory of origins can be scientific by its very nature. "Origins" (like eschatology) is an inherent metaphysical/religious field and outside the scientist's purview.

BTW, your contribution to humanity will also never amount to a fraction of that of Abraham. Do you also have fantasies of travelling back in a time machine and murdering him, like one of the evolutionists quoted (and hyperlinked) in the article?

[darbymcgill]

Evolution doesn't address how the laws of nature got the way they are.

Granted, but there are "sciences" that do. Would you call those "scientists" that claim life began spontaneously from the goo, was sent here by aliens or some other extraordinary "natural" means as "religious" in their teachings. And should those SWAGs be allowed in science class and text books?

[RogueIsland]

Evolution doesn't address how the laws of nature got the way they are. Maybe God did it or maybe he didn't. Evolution doesn't say.

Don't confuse the Creationists with facts. It just gets their jihadist blood stirred up.