Posted on 01/14/2006 5:03:40 PM PST by PatrickHenry
The Discovery Institute, an organization which bills itself as “the leading organization supporting scientific research into intelligent design” is seeking to distance itself from creationists. Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute wrote a letter to John W. Wight, Superintendent of the El Tejon school district in California seeking to change the title or content of a class. The district is facing a lawsuit filed by parents over a course titled “Philosophy of Design” taught by Sharon Lemburg, the wife of a local minister.
According to Luskin’s letter “the course inaccurately mixes intelligent design with young earth creationism or Biblical creationism. Moreover, it appears that more than half of the course content deals with young earth creationist materials.” Luskin urged the school’s superintendent to “either reformulate the course by removing the young earth creationist materials or retitle the course as a course not focused on intelligent design.”
The concern of Luskin and his fellows at the Discovery Institute is that intelligent design will be equated with creationism. He tries to explain the difference to Mr. Wight this way; “Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine creator. Thus the U.S. Supreme Court found that creationism was religion in 1987 in the case Edwards v. Aguillard.” [opinion here.]
The reason the ID crowd wants to avoid this association is that teaching creationism is illegal as Luskin notes. After a scathing rebuke by Judge Jones in Dover last year [Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.] for trying to sneak intelligent design into science classes there, intelligent design advocates want to take every opportunity to paint their idea as science and not as creationism. But it should be noted that among the senior fellows and fellows for whom there are biographies on their site, they boast more theology degrees than chemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, biochemistry or physics. The only degree more widely represented than theology among them is philosophy. But they don’t want the courts to think they are advancing any religious ideas.
Of course, most observers make that connection anyway. When Pat Robertson told Dover residents not to call on God because they had voted God out of their town he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. When one of Dover’s school board members advocating intelligent design said “2000 years ago someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?” he was making a direct connection between intelligent design and creationism. Although the Discovery Institutes official line for intelligent design is “science can’t identify this intelligent designer” senior fellow Michael Behe admits he thinks it is God.
The fact is, intelligent design is a thinly veiled attempt to legitimize creationism and import it into public schools as science. What I find hilarious about the Discovery Institute’s letter to Mr. Wight is that Casey Luskin makes the assertion that “Under the current formulation, the course title “Philosophy of design” misrepresents intelligent design by promoting young earth creationism under the guise of intelligent design.” That is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Intelligent design proponents are trying to misrepresent science by promoting intelligent design under the guise of science.
Intelligent design is creationism. Refusing to name the creator doesn’t change that. It only demonstrates how disingenuous its advocates are.
It is a result of the 1987 Supreme Court case which blew Creation "Science" out of the water, and which led to the invention of ID. It's all laid out in The Wedge Strategy. These folks slipped and let out their entire strategy; are we now to believe they are not following it?
Just checking in to see what the latest bugaboo is with the FR Soviet Science Academy.
Or as poster "nickmatzke" on talk.origins summarized it:
Boy, they change their tune fast, don't they?Read the articles and notice how they went off half-cocked for two days, snottily ranting about how "Darwinists" were trying to ban the "theory" of intelligent design from schools entirely, blah blah blah. Then on the third day, they finally got around to examining the facts of the course, and ended up agreeing with the "Darwinists" -- saying in effect, "hey, this isn't an intelligent design class, this is religion!" Um, yeah, that's what we've been saying all along, ID dudes, glad you finally could catch up after you got done doing your scripted ranting.Monday:
Darwinists Want To Ban Intelligent Design From Not Just Science Classrooms, But All Classrooms
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/darwinists_want_to_ban_intelli.htmlTuesday:
Dogmatic Darwinists Strike Again: Americans United for the Separation of Students and Science
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/dogmatic_darwinists_strike_aga.htmlWednesday:
Intelligent Design Group Urges California High School to Change Course or Remove Intelligent Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/01/intelligent_design_group_urges.html#more
They're calling it "ID" these days.
GO STEELERS!!!! Woo Hoo!!!
How can they tell the difference? Oh, probably the preacher's wife didn't get the memo, and she thoughtlessly used the G-word, which is interchangeable with the D-word, but which -- if carefully avoided -- somehow makes their "science" acceptable under the First Amendment.
Please document this amazing claim. I'll bet you can't do it.
On the contrary, it's hard to think of a prominent ID proponent who has *not* gone on the record stumping for God as the "designer":
ID proponents Johnson, William Dembski, and Charles Thaxton, one of the editors of Pandas, situate ID in the Book of John in the New Testament of the Bible, which begins, “In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was God.” (11:18-20, 54-55 (Forrest); P-524; P-355; P-357). Dembski has written that ID is a “ground clearing operation” to allow Christianity to receive serious consideration, and “Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion.”The above excerpts are from the Kitzmiller decision -- the gift that keeps on giving. Also see the graphic of Johnson's quote which I posted on this thread a short time ago.[...]
Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God
[...]
Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.
I always liked that one.
In the science classroom it goes something like,
"Since the so-called theory of ID makes no testable predictions, it's not science."
Also, there's no reason it shouldn't be included in the historical introduction to biology or geology.
Please give a few examples.
The Bible does not say this earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Now why would the Heavenly Father allow a lie = evolution to become the standard to replace a claim his earth is a mere 6,000 years old. Won't add up and will not fly.
Anything can be included in ID since it's a "teach the controversy" approach.
It's the identical argument of the leftists, who want their alternate lifestyles to be taught in the government schools. Stop the discrimination! Free speech! What are you afraid of? Teach the controversy! Let the children decide.
Since kids are smarter than us old fogies and are perfectly capable of making decisions in their own long-term, best interests.
I almost got through typing that without cracking up. ;)
Congratulations to you, Dave, for your ability to patiently put up with the Darwinist arrogance on these threads.
makes perfect sense, since ID is nothing more than Christian PC.
It's not really Christian, although a few denominations preach ID/creationism. Many mainstream denominations have no problem with evolution:
The "Clergy Letter Project". 10,000 clergymen endorse evolution.
Statements from Religious Organizations. In favor of evolution.
Creationism/ID is also a feature of Islam:
Harun Yahya International. Islamic creationism
Islamic Scientific Creationism: A New Challenge in Turkey. Links between Harun Yahya and ICR's Gish and Morris.
SRF (Science Research Foundation) Conferences US and Islamic creationists working together.
Why Muslims Should Support Intelligent Design, By Mustafa Akyol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.