It all comes down to this:

Humanity (or at least the more inquiring portion of it) has always tried to figure out the Universe. One of the first and most popular methodologies was something called religion, where the Universe was imagined to be under the control of various deities and their doings, interpreted by a priest-class.

This seemed to work quite well (although with statistical insignificance or negative results) until c. the 1500s, when observational data began to show that many of the occurrences previously attributed to deities could instead be completely explained by the actions of natural forces. Those natural forces could be explained by observed evidence and mathematical processing thereof. In short, they didn’t have to be “believed on ‘faith’”.

As the natural sciences investigated more areas, the “God idea”, a human invention, diminished to the point where it was (thankfully) banished from the arena. Truly natural science had/has no need for invocations of the supernatural.

The current problem is that humanity, for the most part, has no problem accepting the benefits of the new, well-proved scientific methodology, but insists on clinging to its now obsolete religious methodologies.

The sooner we relegate those obsolete, ineffectual, superstition-based religious methodologies to the trash bin, the better off we we will be as a species.

Except that it’s not just “ONE idea� promoted by “ONE little institute�. Countering Evolution is only the first stop of the ID proponents on their trip to put christianity into the school curriculum. This particular topic is Evolution, because it has been a hot button topic ever since its introduction, but biology in only the starting point. They’re looking to cosmology (where admittedly there’s more philosophy than science in some respects) and then astronomy, and eventual targets are all the Creationist favorites of radiological dating, geology, etc. And while the major voice of ID is the Discovery Institute, they are gathering support from many sources – among them groups like the ICR and other creationist organizations. They have broad public appeal largely due to an underlying public affinity for the position they are promoting and because of their methods of obscuring their intent behind innocuous sounding “scientific� arguments.

>Get a grip, people. If you really had confidence that you have the truth on your side, then what in the heck are you worried about? Unless, perhaps, you doubt that you have you have the truth…

Or perhaps what we’re worried about is that the decisions are being made not on a scientific level by scientists, but on a political level by school board members and voting publics and elected officials like, say, President Bush. We’re talking about issues affecting us on a social and political level every bit as much as we’re talking about the science behind Evolution and/or ID.

>More likely, the panic is a reflection of more basic instincts. As it is often said, follow the money. I think many Darwinists are worried about the sinecures of their jobs, grants, laboratories, etc. They have a lock on all that funding now, but any new theory poses a dangerous threat to that monopoly, a competitor for those jobs and grants. We all know how hierarchical and competitive the world of academe can be, and the threat of losing money just makes its ugly side worse.

I can’t argue that funding issues affect decisions and motivations, but do you have any evidence to support this bold assertion, or is this just guessing on your part?

>Part of this is also quite obviously one of dogmatic belief, as well. Scientific materialism is now the established religion of our academic elite, and any challenge to it’s basic underpinnings is a threat not to be taken lightly, obviously. In these debates, I’m afraid the Darwinian establishment comes off sounding a lot more like Torquemada than Galileo.

You’re welcome to your opinion, but that doesn’t make it right. Scientific materialism has one advantage behind it that can’t be said for any alternatives – duplicable accurate results. Everything from automobiles to electric lights to the internet is based upon scientific materialism. Scientific materialism has brought us such advances in medicine as antibiotics, vaccines, insulin therapy for diabetes, and even surgery. If you want to indulge in homeopathic non-medicine, Therapeutic (non)Touch, spinal manipulation to relieve diabetes and cancer, Facilitated (non)Communication, smoking incense, wearing crystals and/or plastic bracelets, e-meter “clearing�, and faith “healing�, you’re welcome to it, too. Me, I like my medicine to be connected to reality. And I like my science to actually work.

Get a grip, people. If you really had confidence that you have the truth on your side, then what in the heck are you worried about? Unless, perhaps, you doubt that you have you have the truth…

More likely, the panic is a reflection of more basic instincts. As it is often said, follow the money. I think many Darwinists are worried about the sinecures of their jobs, grants, laboratories, etc. They have a lock on all that funding now, but any new theory poses a dangerous threat to that monopoly, a competitor for those jobs and grants. We all know how hierarchical and competitive the world of academe can be, and the threat of losing money just makes its ugly side worse.

Part of this is also quite obviously one of dogmatic belief, as well. Scientific materialism is now the established religion of our academic elite, and any challenge to it’s basic underpinnings is a threat not to be taken lightly, obviously. In these debates, I’m afraid the Darwinian establishment comes off sounding a lot more like Torquemada than Galileo.

First, one can evaluate the factual claims to some degree. Second, and more to the point, one can evaluate the concepts by logic and reasoning. When in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics, use the tools available.

> Where does the idea come from that one religion is “right�?

Monotheism. Polytheistic societies tend to be tolerant of other gods, because they already have a bunch of them, what’s another one? They mostly get concerned that you placate all the gods, rather than quibbling over if you’ve added a new one. The more gods the merrier. Monotheism says “Those other gods aren’t the one true god,” and eventually “there are no other gods”. Polytheistic societies will argue that you must placate the gods correctly, though, so there’s still plenty of room for religious wars.

>And why does one have to accept all or none of it?

There’s a word for someone who picks and chooses the parts of the religion he wants to believe – Heretic. Structured religions codify beliefs in creeds, dogma, teachings, etc. Those who don’t teach the “proper” interpretations are almost worse than the mere infidels – they’re the corrupters of God’s Word.

>Does you only go to restaurants where you like *everything* on the menu?

Somehow I don’t think it’s fair to equate religious belief with a menu. Food choices are a matter of taste, of personal preference. Religion is supposed to be “The Truth”. How can you pick and choose “The Truth”?

>Even if you believe that a single religion, out of them all, was actually inspired by the true God, what about misinterpretations in how the inspiration is coming across?

The literalists would cry Blasphemy. The directly inspired Word of God is directed and controlled by him to be flawless. Mere mortals are just the tools He uses to spread his message, surely he wouldn’t let a mere mortal distort His Message? After all, he’s omnipotent.

[/baiting]