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.
This just in -- the Bible is not a science text.
If you'll note, there doesn't seem to be a problem with the Koran being studied in our schools. I doubt there's much of a problem teaching certain aspects of other religious beliefs either, as long as they are not Christian, so I'm not quite as susceptible to this argument as some might be.
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.
Well, there's the problem. Teaching it as fact is entirely different than teaching it as another theory. Our kids should be exposed to different theories. And that includes the theory of the God of Abraham. If the God of Abraham could be proven without a doubt, there would no need for faith. We would know the God of Abraham existed without it. We can study Stone Hinge. We can study American Indian mythology. We can study a lot of things, just so long as the one true thing isn't contemplated. And I admit it is truth by my standard. But we don't seem to have any problem at all studying truths by other's standards.
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.
I would settle for neo-Darwinism being debunked. Darwinism is a fact. The species do evolve. But like you, I recognize that there is as little proof of neo-Darwinism as there is of the God of Abraham. If one concept is taught, both should be. I feel that we concede too much when we allow neo-Darwinism, the Koran and a multitude of other studies to take place, but relinquish our demands for equal time.
Your comments do make sense, but I differ with you in some regards.
9 posted on 10/15/02 12:44 AM Pacific by Bonaparte