Replies

We also know there is no way to test the idea that a designer is responsible for matter as it is. That's the crux of the problem.

It would be a problem if science were confined to theories and data. But it is not. It must also operate with shaping principles. And no, claims for a designer are not necessarily "theological." Even if they were, that idea may not be excluded from public schools by law.

The State Religion

This is not what the Constitution means when it speaks of the establishment of religion. It speaks of a particular set of religious beliefs, not a generic summary of them all. The federal government is prohibited from establishing Southern Baptist teachings, for example as a state religion. Organized matter and intelligent design are not Southern Baptist ideas. There are not even by necessity theological ideas. Besides, allowing for the teaching of ID is not "establishing" a religion. Perhaps it would be if only a religious understanding of ID were allowed to be taught.

Evolution takes no position one way or the other concerning the existence of a God; teaching it cannot be an establishment of religion.

Evolution typically, but not always, rules God out of consideration. That is taking a position about God. It is taking a non-theistic shaping principle, which is fine. But it is not the only way to understand or explain the existence of a wide variety of species, or organized matter that behaves according to laws.

Because you want the government to force your theological claim on children.

As I've repeatedly said, the notion of intelligent design in the first place is not inherently theological. It is not inherently theological when we find human artifacts,. Why should it be inherently theological just because were are not sure who, or what, is responsible for the design? Furthermore, you obviously do not trust people to think for themselves. You equate free inquiry and expression with "force" and "indoctrination." You cannot tolerate both shaping principles to be enunciated out of an irrational fear. In that regard you are more superstitious than creationists.

Fund your own school.

That directive is best reserved for people like yourself who cannot tolerate pluralistic teaching in public schools. Think how better off you can be, adopting and funding a shaping principle for your science that leaves God out of the picture, and not mixing it at all with any theological notions. You and your children will be smarter, better bred, morally superior, and free from having to think about troubling notions like intelligent design. You'll have all those high paying jobs and be free of all superstition and religion. Go for it!

"It would be a problem if science were confined to theories and data. But it is not. It must also operate with shaping principles. And no, claims for a designer are not necessarily "theological.""

Science does not deal with untestable assumptions like the existence of a God. Any such claims are necessarily theological.

"Even if they were, that idea may not be excluded from public schools by law."

No, theological claims are specifically excluded from government schools by law.

"This is not what the Constitution means when it speaks of the establishment of religion. It speaks of a particular set of religious beliefs, not a generic summary of them all."

ID is not a generic summary of all religions; it's a specific theological claim.

"Organized matter and intelligent design are not Southern Baptist ideas."

Organized matter is not ID. ID is a religious claim.

" Evolution typically, but not always, rules God out of consideration."

No, it really doesn't. It may rule YOUR interpretation of God out (YEC), but that's your problem. Evolution like all science does not take a stand as to the existence or nonexistence of a God.

" As I've repeatedly said, the notion of intelligent design in the first place is not inherently theological."

This is false.

"It is not inherently theological when we find human artifacts,. Why should it be inherently theological just because were are not sure who, or what, is responsible for the design?"

Because we do not know who, what, or how the designer is/does it's designing. We have no way of knowing this. Any claims that we do are theological in nature, not scientific.

"You equate free inquiry and expression with "force" and "indoctrination." "

That's a lie. I equate free inquiry with the right to explore whatever you want, on your own dime.

"You cannot tolerate both shaping principles to be enunciated out of an irrational fear."

One is scientific, the other is theological. You are the one being irrational.

"Think how better off you can be, adopting and funding a shaping principle for your science that leaves God out of the picture, and not mixing it at all with any theological notions."

All science does that already. For centuries now. You want to go back to the time before Galileo and Newton.

" That directive is best reserved for people like yourself who cannot tolerate pluralistic teaching in public schools."

I will still be paying for your religious teaching in the public schools. Nobody should have to pay for another person's religious instruction.