Kansas ... AGAIN!

Not to toot my own horn, but I have been pointing this out for some time. ID is not just questions about scientific evidence, but what counts as evidence, and what counts as science.Dembski's books and some of his articles explicitly state that this was an end that ID was seeking. He openly deplores the enlightenment and says that developments in scientific methodology during that time were hindrances to knowledge, while championing deductive systems in Greek and pre enlightenment science.I've never understood how in any of these discussions at the govt level (boards, courts, commissions) critics have not simply read from Dembski and explained what this means for science. The decision to rewrite science legally is much more important and dangerous than simply teaching people to doubt evo.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

ahem... and an ultimately *cough cough* religious *cough cough* end.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree with pretty much everything RAZD said but I would like to add a bit more on a couple points... Well that really isn't quite true. That the culture was generally Judeo-Xian in nature I don't think is debatable. Even the Deists were Judeo-Xian in culture, though that meant different things when broken down at the local level of personal practices.In any case, the GOVERNMENT and so the NATION of the United States was not FOUNDED on such values. It is essentially neutral value-wise, and if anything came from Pagan virtues dating back to the Greeks. This is about as equally beyond debate as the fact that the culture was Judeo-Xian.All you have to do is look at the source material that they used to construct this nation's govt, and what period this came out of. The Enlightenment involved a rediscovery of many political and governmental concepts lost or supressed during the long reign of Xian tyrants.That is why it is not surprising to see that it was deists more than other denominations that were championing this new (for that time) govt. They were more likely to have read the literature exploring different concepts of govt, and not worry of the implication.In the end they created a govt sans any value system. They trusted the people to control and shape their own value systems, without interference of the govt, which dealt with secular (common physical/practical) issues. As RAZD said, there originally was no such concept as a pledge. Then the pledge was created and that I believe was a huge mistake in itself. Then the words Under God were placed right before "indivisible" in perhaps one of the most ironic touches that could have been made, to identify us as religious vs not.I'm sorry but no matter how you look at religion, that is against the Constitution. There is no need for it and it is divisive and it is enforcing a religious view.Unlike RAZD I'd say just plain get rid of the pledge. It was a bad idea anyway.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)