Replies

"I don't quite see how this is even remotely analagous."

I know, and that's sad, but the fact is that it's very closely analogous.

"Moreover, you're misrepresenting the objection."

No, I just cut to the heart of it.

"no one is currently teaching in schools that God-belief is somehow irrational."

If I were gullible enough to believe that, I'd probably be a liberal.

"People are proposing mentioning that there are those who don't believe that evolution is valid science"

However, ID proponents are not among them. The way ID proponents are demonized on these threads is by declaring them nothing more than crevos in disguise.

"and unless you believe that accepting evolution is synonymous with atheism (and I've made it clear exactly what I think of people who make that false equivocation) those are two different statements."

No, that's not right either. I don't reject the fossil record, while I do believe in God. It's entirely plausible to me that He might have used evolution to get where He was going.

The crux of the matter is that many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God, and they don't want any interference.

"Do we take time out for every scientific theory to make note of the fact that there are cranks with their own "alternative" explanation that doesn't rise to the level of science?"

So, people who believe in God are cranks, are we? That attitude is exactly the reason that time is needed to advocate the contrary position.

"And why did you bring God into it when God was never the subject of the objection?"

Sure He is. You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, but the fact is that many "scientists" are driven to paroxyms of hysteria by the thought that someone might just poke his head into a classroom and say, "And we think God was behind it all."

I know, and that's sad, but the fact is that it's very closely analogous.

So pointing out that "God belief" is not a short and concise summary of all religions in the world is analagous to being ignorant of air resistance?

If I were gullible enough to believe that, I'd probably be a liberal.

Citations to the contrary?

However, ID proponents are not among them. The way ID proponents are demonized on these threads is by declaring them nothing more than crevos in disguise.

And if you'd look at the very writings of ID proponents, you would know exactly why. They're called crevos in disguise because a number of them have admitted to being crevos in disguise. Why did Pat Robertson claim that the citizens of Dover should not call upon God in the face of a disaster? Why did members of the Kansas Board of Education state outright that their objections to evolution were religious in nature?

No, that's not right either. I don't reject the fossil record, while I do believe in God. It's entirely plausible to me that He might have used evolution to get where He was going.

And you won't find anyone on the evolution side who will take issue with this statement. Some will correctly tell you that this position is not scientific, but that's not the same as the position being false.

The crux of the matter is that many if not most atheists hold up evolution as evidence or proof of the nonexistence of God, and they don't want any interference.

Please. I've met very few atheists who actually make such a claim. The only one I've ever seen pop up regularly is Dawkins. And Dawkins talks out of his ass when he's talking outside of his field. The majority of people opposing ID in schools are theists, not atheists. Your claim doesn't stand up to cursory scrutiny.

So, people who believe in God are cranks, are we?

I was referring to people pushing ID and other nonscientific nonsense in science classrooms, not God-belief. I made that quite clear by bringing up that as the specific subject before making the reference to "cranks". Why did you quote me out of context like that?

Sure He is. You can throw up all the smokescreens you want, but the fact is that many "scientists" are driven to paroxyms of hysteria by the thought that someone might just poke his head into a classroom and say, "And we think God was behind it all."

That would be because "God was behind it all", while possibly a true statement, is not a scientific statement and it is fundamentally dishonest to present it as such.