quote:
The reason there are no ID hypotheses is that ID is religion in disguise. Its basis is fundamentalist Christian belief, not science.
Having no scientific basis, all the IDers can do is try to knock down the theory of evolution in the hope that they can raise doubts about science in general and the theory of evolution in particular, and based on those doubts, they hope to come up with some converts to their real religious beliefs. And if they can cast doubt on all of "materialism and its cultural legacies" so much the better.
But when asked to propose an ID curriculum (the topic of this thread) there is no response. There is only anti-evolutionary propaganda masquerading as pseudo-science in the hope of fooling somebody.
But hey, that's good enough! Let's teach it in the schools anyway.
*yawn*
Same old straw man the evolutionists have been trotting out for the entire thread.
I'm waiting for just one to have enough guts to look I.D. in the eyes.
Your tactics betray that you expect defeat, and you may well help fulfill that prediction. What happens when a person reads this kind of thing and is subsequently exposed to actual I.D.? Will they not see the contrast?
This whole topic's a joke. The difference in classrooms would be nearly imperceptible. Evolutionism would be preached during valuable time that should be devoted to teaching biology, history, etc. The only difference is that during abiogenesis week, students would be allowed to consider alternatives.
Now this would entail a bit of shuffling. Abiogenesis week would be moved to the tail end. Can't have students start out questioning something so fundamental to the religion, and then proceed to indoctrinate them with falsehood. No, falsehood first - then the one lie they're allowed to question.
The fact that this one lie must be securely safeguarded against any questioning betrays that evolutionism is a house of cards. Evolutionists are even more acutely aware of this vulnerability than IDers, as this thread demonstrates.
I should make clear that although the difference in classrooms would be nearly imperceptible, the difference in the students might not. It could be just as you fear: once they're permitted to openly question one aspect of your religion, the rest of your doctrines are in great jeopardy. Your antiscience could suffer a major drop in popularity, and your capacity to censor scientists could disappear entirely.
™ Version 4.2
