Exactly what I thought.
It's amazing to me how the evolutionists are so tyrannical about not allowing competing views be expressed in the classroom. Even if that view does not mention specifically "God" but reduces that object to a more secular "designer."
And I thought science was supposed to be open minded.
"It's amazing to me how the evolutionists are so tyrannical about not allowing competing views be expressed in the classroom. Even if that view does not mention specifically "God" but reduces that object to a more secular "designer."
And I thought science was supposed to be open minded."
Name one scientific theory that names God as a causal agent.
Those "competing views" need to pass the peer-review test (like all other science) before they're introduced into the classroom.
Your pet desires do not get a pass in that department.
I have no problem with ID being taught...in philosophy class.
It is.
What IDers and creationists don't seem to understand, possibly because they don't spend much time looking at other areas of science, is that MOST competing scientific hypothese are put through a wringer by the scientific community before they are discarded, or in some cases accepted.
It's part of the scientific process. Those ideas that can survive rigorous scientific review move onwards ... those that don't do not deserve to. Sometimes the process can take a long time.
NO scientific opinion, no matter how much you want it to, should skip the whole process of scientific testing, review, and study, and be taught directly in the science classroom on an equal footing with currently accepted scientific theory.
If IDers are so certain their ideas are correct, they need to go through the prcoess. This doesn't include just showing evolution is wrong ... as that does not mean, necessarily, that ID is right.
Plenty of scientists in other fields than evolution have presented concepts and been considered crackpots until testing and evidence backed them up ... sometimes even after they died. Of course, many more scientists have been justifiably shown to be crackpots.
There are plenty of BAD ideas out there in science, that haven't been weeded out yet, and why should we allow ID in the door before it's proven it's not one of these bad ideas if we aren;t going to allow ANY hypothese any politically/financially/spiritually motivated group has before it's gone through the necessary steps?