“Intelligent design has been determined to be religion in disguise by a U.S. Federal District Court”
There’s no disguise. Of course it’s a religious position. How could saying “God did it” not be a matter of religion?
“and has been determined not to be science by the overwhelming majority (probably 99.5%+) of the relevant scientific community.”
Of course it’s not science. How could “God did it” be science? Science is inadequate to explore the metaphysical.
That said, the dogma, “Evolution proves there is no God” shares both those traits. It is religion, and it is not science.
So long as we are not burning educators at the stake for teaching, conveying, implying, or in any way communicating that notion, ID belongs in any classroom where first causes are discussed.
It’s not necessary to spend a lot of time on it; one need only communicate that there is an alternative to the orthodoxy of the God-haters, in which Academia is steeped.
bump
You wrote: “That said, the dogma, “Evolution proves there is no God” shares both those traits. It is religion, and it is not science.”
___________________
My response: [Macro] Evolution does not prove there is no god, i.e. a creator of the universe. If macro-evolution has occurred, however, it is contrary to the ridiculous fairy-tale myths of creation of the universe in the Bible, and the equally laughable Adam and Eve creation myth in the Bible. Macro-evolution is therefore contradictory of the Bible, and Christianity in particular. Nevertheless, macro-evolution does not per se disprove “religion,” if you mean that term broadly to include belief in a supernatural deity that created the universe. However, macro-evolution certainly is not dependant upon the existence of a supernatural creator of the universe. To say that macro-evolution is itself a religion is not logical.