More on the creationist crack-up over the Dover textbook suit

[BurtWorm]

A summary of the crack-up by Canadian creationist Denyse O'Leary:



http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2005/06/updated-key-id-theorist-threatens-to.html

Discovery Institute, of which Bill Dembski is a fellow, does not support teaching intelligent design theory at the schools level. That’s part of the background to this dispute. In Discovery’s view, ID theory is in an early stage of development and properly belongs in university common rooms, defenses of theses, journals, et cetera. The science information that gave rise to it only emerged in the last thirty years, and was stalled by narrow Darwinism.

Discovery’s main focus is to defend scientists and mathematicians working at the university level from the obsessive attacks of academic Darwinists. Anyone who wants to know what a closed society would feel like and does not wish to move to Iran should check out the "Panda’s Thumb blog.

However, many traditional theists, who accept the abundant evidence of design of the universe, are tired of having the public schools they are legally forced to fund dominated by atheistic philosophies on the grounds that these philosophies are “not religious. ” As I pointed out frequently during the Privileged Planet controversy, it is merely a rhetorical trick to define Carl Sagan’s explicit philosophy (it looks like pure chance) as “not religious” but, say, Guillermo Gonzalez’s explicit philosophy (it looks like some kind of purpose) as “religious.” This trick turns a public school system into an instrument for promoting atheism at the public expense. That is the very opposite of the Americans’ proud boast that they have not “established a religion.” Indeed, they have – the Church of St. Carl (Sagan).

As a result, on this issue my heart is with the Thomas More Law Center, but — my head is with the Discovery Institute. The answer is not to teach intelligent design theory to tots. It is this: Get the atheistic presuppositions out of the school system. Otherwise, a court will end up doing it. And I cringe at the prospect, because legislating from the bench is always a kludge. The closer any education system remains to the experienced classroom teacher’s intuitions, the better.

:popcorn:

[fasttense]

1. Sounds like a bunch of mumble jumble to me.

You have two choices, teach about God or don't teach about God. Not teaching about God is labeled "Darwinism, atheism or (a new one to me) Church of St Carl Sagan". Why can't not teaching God be considered simply that? I don't want my children to be taught this arbitrary and unscientific crap as if it were science merely because a bunch of mostly white men decided to put it in a collection of writings. Leave the teaching of God to the church of your choice and leave my kids out of it.

I can guarantee you that many of our founding fathers did not buy into all the dogmatic Christian ideology. They were pretty free thinkers and though pragmatic, they had some very radical views that would make the members of the Discovery Institute embarrassed to mention their names.

[ComerPerro]

2. I have always figured

that if the founding fathers were like todays conservatives, or if they were religious fundamentalists who believed the Bible literally, then they wouldn't have ever separated from England in the first place.

We did have fundies and Conservatives back then. They were called "torries".