Are you naive or dishonest?
Governing Goals
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Five Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
Twenty Year Goals
To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
Gee, that's a tough choice.
How 'bout this? I'm opened minded because I don't have a dog in this fight, how about I'm just pointing out blantant hypocracy when I see it?
Let's return to the point of this thread, Dr. Gonzales. Dr. G. was denied tenure despite stellar, pardon the pun, credentials. He was denied tenure based soley on his association w/ a group that is in disfavor in academic circles.
And the cry from academia's supporters here is "the Christians are trying to censure us". The true censureship here is right in front of your face.
Fine, let’s say that there is a political agenda to id and ignore the actual id hypothesis that has existed now for over two millennia (before any political agenda) which allowed science to progress in our western civilization to its current stage. If we choose to look only at political agendas within science then we must also look at what caused the current stance that science now takes due to Darwin and his supporters due to the politics of Darwin‘s day.
According to historian James Moore (1982), however, around 1840 a new movement of young middle-class reformers calling themselves "Naturalists" appeared. This group as young adults typically changed their creed from Christianity (which they felt was morally bankrupt) to one based on "Nature." They were "poets and lawyers, doctors and manufacturers, novelists and naturalists, engineers and politicians." The group included such well-known individuals as George Eliot, Herbert Spencer, Matthew Arnold, Francis Galton, J. A. Froude, G. H. Lewes, Charles Bray, Alfred Lord Tennyson, John Tyndall, F. W. Newman, A. H. Clough, Harriet Martineau, F. P. Cobbe, and, of course, T. H. Huxley. Moore shows that the central feature of this new creed was the redefinition of human nature, society, order, law, evil, progress, purpose, authority, and nature itself in terms of the Naturalists' particular view of Nature, as opposed to the Christian Scriptures. In fact, they tended to attack the Christian Scriptures as the true source of societal evil. God, if he existed, was to be known only through the Nature which he made. Thus, according to Moore (1982) and Young (1980), "positivism" was not primarily a methodology for science, but a religious movement that sought to replace the cultural dominance of the Established Church.Charles Darwin launched his theory of biological change in this context. He proposed a mechanism for the appearance of new forms that did not depend on any pre-existing or exterior shaping forces. The environment became the only needed constraint. It was a theory of strategic importance for the Naturalists, particularly for the "X" club, Huxley's "Young Guard" party in science.
The significance of a mechanism can be understood only within the world views of its proponents. The "Naturalism" that initially proposed and supported Darwin's mechanism was both a world view and a social movement. These individuals viewed the world as autonomous, and the Darwinian mechanism as autonomous creator. The scientific members of this movement, Huxley's "X" club, were engaged in a successful campaign to wrest the university chairs in the sciences from the clergymen/naturalists of the Established Church. The ability of Darwinism to replace the divine with a natural process was a critical support.
- David L. Wilcox
I can just picture the people that disagreed with this new naturalistic philosophy without the forum of the internet and without the belief in this new naturalism that must now exist only in “peer reviewed” papers. I do not claim a ‘conspiracy theory’ but I do recognize the ramifications of this new theory. It is obvious - it is put out for us to view daily and not just on Darwin Day.
Does id control academia and does it decide what should be taught? No!!! Why is id a threat to academia if no ‘peer reviewed‘ article or Professor can be accepted who accepts anything associated with id? It seems to me that science has created a ‘boogieman’ that really does not exist. If you actually believe anything that might be associated with id than you are labeled anti-science by academia.
I see id existing in my life and in the world. Does this make me anti-science or does this make the rest of the world anti-intelligent?