Replies

Well, without morality the teaching of ID means nothing to me. What's the purpsoe of going from one Godless concept to another? What purpose is there to teaching the ID of man and our universe if the story of God is not connected to it? The presentation of ID would then be a third concept, not a presentation of creation, the introduction of sin and the story of redemption as accepted by Christians.

Evidently the teaching of ID is the equivelent of rice cake when it comes to educational nutrition. Fighting the battle to introduce it would be pointless.

Win or lose, the left comes away having once again avoided the moral truths of the ages. A living God created us in His image. He set up a test of our own free will. We made the wrong choice. Despite this He devised a way to rescue us from the effects of sin. And by providing His Son as the sacrificial lamb, He did it. Without these truths included, ID is just empty calories IMO.

This just in -- the Bible is not a science text.

And it's just not realistic to think you can scientifically demonstrate the existence of the God of Abraham. "Scientific creationism" tried to do this and predictably fell on its face. OTOH, ID is rigorously scientific and if given a fair hearing in the schools and the public forum, it will easily displace Darwinism, exposing it for the junk science that it is. Nowhere in ID is the existence of the God of Abraham ruled out. It is left open scientifically as one of the many possible identities of the designer.<-p>Net result -- neo-Darwinism exposed and discredited, rigorous methodology restored to questions of origin, and intelligent designer ascendant. This is progress, even though it may not be the outcome you (or I) might ultimately wish for.

What purpose is there to teaching the ID of man and our universe if the story of God is not connected to it?

Well, if a God was involved, which God would be taught? There have been quite a few different gods thought up during the course of human history.