I absolutley agree with you here.
But where does science make any claims about God? And why is it Biology that is the focus of such sustained attention here, rather than Geology or Physics or Chemistry?
I find the conclusion inescapable -- though I am happy to hear arguments that might persuade me otherwise -- that what is at work here is a specific political agenda by a small group of religious sectarians. Let me expand a little:
Historically, our understanding of the natural world was intimately bound up with our various religions, with their creation myths and accounts of divine intervention without which natural phenomena were inexplicable. Science, which springs from our inherent curosity and has forged a powerful methodolgy from our rationality, has indeed collided with these older religious worldviews. This isn't a 'program' of science, but it is an inevitable outcome: once you understand static electricity, it's only a question of time before Zeus and Thor are going to lose their jobs as Thunder-Makers.
But it does not mecessarily follow that science is thereby in the business of 'attacking religion' or 'denying God.' It may be (and I am one who tends to think this way) that God is a far more sophisticated concept than we may have thought in previous times. Most major Christian denominations, for example, are not threatened by Darwin and the theory of evolution.
Clearly, science is at odds with some people's concept of God; such folks would be best advised to ignore science rather than to make all this special pleading for some kind of 'affirmative action' to protect their minority beliefs.
Thank you for a very fine response! I'd like to keep up this discussion. I have to go to work now, but I'll try to come back to this. I hope you and the others have a fine day and evening!
You made some excellent points! I agree that God is far more sophisticated than our concepts of Him.
You are correct that biology is singled out by people of faith for questioning to a degree not found in physics, chemistry, geology, or other sciences. You suggest that this is because of a political agenda by a small group of sectarians, and in a sense you are correct. However, I would add a few things! :-)
The fact that Christians rarely, if ever, question most scientific disciplines should be taken as evidence that Christians, even fundamentalists, aren't anti-science. Evolution, however, touches upon the essential spiritual nature of human life. Were we created in the Image of God, or are we just the result of chemical processes which just happen to work the way they do, without God having anything to do with it?
Teaching evolution is fine with me, and with most people. It may be true, though it can never be proven, and I have doubts about it. But it's a fine theory as theories go. I just don't think it's dogma.
Science entertains ideas all the time that would be forbidden if the rules used to exclude ID were applied across the board. The ACLU wouldn't go roaring into court to ban discussion of life in other galaxies or parallel universes in science class. Can you falsify the assertion that there are parallel universes? Can you subject a claim that life exists in a galaxy 30,000,000 light years away to the scientific method? Heck, the ACLU wouldn't object if they brought a witch into class to explain the science of casting spells.
In addition, scientific facts that liberals find upsetting are routinely exorcised from science curricula. I've mentioned many times here that there's a large body of scientific evidence indicating that men are on average better at math than women. Yet, that fact won't ever make it into any textbook. If a teacher told his class about this fact he'd be fired, with the ACLU among those demanding his scalp. What about homosexuality? Is it normal? No school system today would dare say it isn't, no matter what biology may tell us.
I'm not for censoring science. I'm just noting that it's often done by the left with no outcry from the science organizations that claim there's a "war against science" if someone merely suggests that the theory of evolution isn't a proven fact.
I don't particularly care if the Behe ID idea is taught in schools or not, though it's none of the federal courts' business if it is. Most Americans would, I think, be satisfied if science would just abide by its own rules, rather than playing lip service to them. It really wouldn't hurt anything to have a discussion about science's limitations in science class. It wouldn't involve censorship, as the demands of feminists, gays, and egalitarians often do. Spend a little time discussing the fact that science says nothing, one way or the other, about the existence of God. It's true, isn't it? But it won't happen, because it would hamper the agenda of the ACLU and others who see science, particularly evolution, as a tool to be used against religion. And that's where the real political agenda lies.