[silverleaf]

So the Church (religion) persecuting Galileo (science) for contradicting fragile beliefs is like scientists (science) defending evolution (science) from ID-based (religion) attacks? Galileo had evidence, the Church had an interpretation of the Bible (and a perceived threat to their power).
.
Yes, the simile is that in both cases, one side was willing to use threats to silence the other side from even expressing its opinion, and supporting evidence, in open forum. In both the case of the 17th century Church which sought to define science as dangerously irreverent, and latter 21st century science which seeks to define faith as dangerously irrational .... seeking censorship through threats of legal coercion..has replaced tolerance and debate .... and has consigned open inquiry into finding scientific proof of the existence and nature of the Judeao-Christian personal God....or of an impersonal but highly advanced super intelligent consciousness which underlies the creation of a mathematically precise universe...to open ridicule ("flying spaghetti monster" indeed).

And by the way, Galileo had both science AND faith. His beef was not that the Church was wrong to believe in God's role as Creator, but that they were misinterpreting the way God did it, based on the physical evidence.

[gondramB]

>>latter 21st century science which seeks to define faith as dangerously irrational .... seeking censorship through threats of legal coercion..has replaced tolerance and debat<<


I don't understand how someone can say something like that with a straight face.

You can talk about religion anywhere you want. What scientists don't like is forcing scientists to teach things in science class that arent science based.

[stands2reason]

one side was willing to use threats to silence the other side from even expressing its opinion, and supporting evidence, in open forum.

Open forum? IDers are welcome to present their findings to scientific journals. That is the forum that scientists use.

IDers think that public school is an "open forum" where scientific ideas are hashed out. They are mistaken. They cannot skip the scientific forum that every other scientific hypothesis has had to follow.

Tell me, silverleaf, what makes ID so special that it gets to skip the usual route of scientific theory?

[LibertarianSchmoe]

21st century science which seeks to define faith as dangerously irrational

This assertion is simply untrue, but it explains why you believe the way you do.

seeking censorship through threats of legal coercion..has replaced tolerance and debate

It's not censorship when a religious idea is prevented from being presented to "mush-minds" as science. IDers keep trying to manufacture arguments (strawmen) rather than debate the actual issue at hand: is ID science? If you want to assert that, you have to be willing to provide evidence. Why is the ID crowd spending so much energy creating strawmen and so little trying to scientifically prove their belief?

and has consigned open inquiry into finding scientific proof of the existence and nature of the Judeao-Christian personal God....or of an impersonal but highly advanced super intelligent consciousness which underlies the creation of a mathematically precise universe...to open ridicule

There is no scientific uber-organization that could make such a consignation. You are free to search for, and find, as much proof as you want! If you could prove God's existence, you'd be the most famous person in history, and deservingly so. But if your search is fruitless, don't try to change the rules of science (through coercion) as compensation. And don't call everyone who says "That's not proof" an atheist.

And by the way, Galileo had both science AND faith.

Like many evolutionary scientists

His beef was not that the Church was wrong to believe in God's role as Creator, but that they were misinterpreting the way God did it, based on the physical evidence.

Thank you. This is exactly what most of us "evolutionists" have been trying to argue on these threads!