Replies

"When we come acrioss a humanly designed artifact we have at least some idea why it exists the way it does."

The universe is not a human artifact, so alas, we have no weighted evidence to say there was or wasn't a designer of it.

"As I said, there is nothing inherently "religious" about organized matter that serves a purpose, whether we know it is humanly organized or not."

We also know there is no way to test the idea that a designer is responsible for matter as it is. That's the crux of the problem. Any claims for (or against) such a designer are not scientific but theological.

"Please specify which religion is established by suggesting that organized matter that behaves according to laws may be the result of intelligent design."

The State Religion.

"Please explain to me how such a religion is established when the non-theistic points of evolution are also allowed at the same time."

Evolution takes no position one way or the other concerning the existence of a God; teaching it cannot be an establishment of religion.

"It has always been my contention that both points of view should be presented to the "captive" audience."

Because you want the government to force your theological claim on children. Fund your own school.

"That has not been your contention. You are not the champion of free inquiry you paint yourself to be."

No, I am a champion of free inquiry; I am not a champion of the Government teaching theology. You are free to inquire about what ever you wish Fester, you are not free to force someone else's children to be taught your every whim.

"The public is made up of both secular and religious people. Does that fact escape you?"

No, it escapes you though. It is because of the wide range of theological views that people hold privately that the government cannot favor any. You can't get your theology to be taken seriously as science (a label you crave for your claim but whose methods you despise because it excludes your theology) so you want to force schools to teach it anyway.

We also know there is no way to test the idea that a designer is responsible for matter as it is. That's the crux of the problem.

It would be a problem if science were confined to theories and data. But it is not. It must also operate with shaping principles. And no, claims for a designer are not necessarily "theological." Even if they were, that idea may not be excluded from public schools by law.

The State Religion

This is not what the Constitution means when it speaks of the establishment of religion. It speaks of a particular set of religious beliefs, not a generic summary of them all. The federal government is prohibited from establishing Southern Baptist teachings, for example as a state religion. Organized matter and intelligent design are not Southern Baptist ideas. There are not even by necessity theological ideas. Besides, allowing for the teaching of ID is not "establishing" a religion. Perhaps it would be if only a religious understanding of ID were allowed to be taught.

Evolution takes no position one way or the other concerning the existence of a God; teaching it cannot be an establishment of religion.

Evolution typically, but not always, rules God out of consideration. That is taking a position about God. It is taking a non-theistic shaping principle, which is fine. But it is not the only way to understand or explain the existence of a wide variety of species, or organized matter that behaves according to laws.

Because you want the government to force your theological claim on children.

As I've repeatedly said, the notion of intelligent design in the first place is not inherently theological. It is not inherently theological when we find human artifacts,. Why should it be inherently theological just because were are not sure who, or what, is responsible for the design? Furthermore, you obviously do not trust people to think for themselves. You equate free inquiry and expression with "force" and "indoctrination." You cannot tolerate both shaping principles to be enunciated out of an irrational fear. In that regard you are more superstitious than creationists.

Fund your own school.

That directive is best reserved for people like yourself who cannot tolerate pluralistic teaching in public schools. Think how better off you can be, adopting and funding a shaping principle for your science that leaves God out of the picture, and not mixing it at all with any theological notions. You and your children will be smarter, better bred, morally superior, and free from having to think about troubling notions like intelligent design. You'll have all those high paying jobs and be free of all superstition and religion. Go for it!