A Confused Iguana
- Report Post
- Posted: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:47:12 +0000
The simple answer is that Intelligent Design is simply not scientific and would required a foolish redefinition of science to admit it as such. This redefinition is bad news and teaching ID in classrooms is bad news.
My God, what did people believe before Chucky Darwin? People act if the Messiah Lord and Savior Charles Darwin didnt appear on the scene, we'd be living in a theocracy dictated scientific world.
For many years creationists waged a campaign to get their ideas into the classroom. Then the US courts ruled that creationism was not science. Within months the now important creationist text, Of Pandas and People, was redrafted and Intelligent Design was born [this was revealed in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover case when the publishers were subpoenaed to produce the original drafts of the book]. They are still at it, attempting to shoehorn this hypothesis into the mind of the public rather than the normal research route. For all the talk of scientific elitism — for ID is not scientific and, in my opinion, unworthy of funding — there are routes to obtain grant money for origins research to answer the "Big Questions" that have been ignored by ID proponents.
Yet they claim they are being shut down when they are unwilling to play scientist like everyone else. Claims that have been shown to be distortions of the actual events: Dr Richard Sternberg, Professor Guillermo Gonzalez, Dr Caroline Crocker, Professor Robert Marks, Pamela Winnick and Dr Michael Egnor; all these stories were spun to blame it purely on their support of Intelligent Design when that was not the case.
Stop looking for conspiracies where none exist.
Or do I have to I have to repost my apologia again so that you actually understand the arguments being put forward?