Doesn’t that fit the criteria for Intelligent Design.

(And to the nitpickers: humanity is assumed to be a “wolfling” race whose patrons abandoned them millennia ago, which is a serious offense in Galactic civilization. And while the long-gone Progenitors, the founding race (or races) of the Uplift culture, are revered for their accomplishments, no orthodox member of that society thinks to ask: “So who uplifted THEM?”)

Have you seen this ?

Intelligent design not science, says Vatican newspaper article

from:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm

Cordially,
Paul F.

Well, there is that silly one about not bearing false witness. It’s often construed as not lying, but even in the narrowest definition I think it still applies to court testimony.

Exactly right. I will be the first to admit that many religious people are not 1) “stupid about their beliefs” and/or 2) intentionally deceptive like some of the creationists who’ve posted here.

Despite my atheism, I have many close friends and colleagues from a wide variety of religious backgrounds, and we get along wonderfully. Oh yeah, and they *all* see no contradiction between religion and the science of evolution, just like the 10,000+ signatories to the Clergy Letter Project…

http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm

The ID-creationist folks (like those at http://www.reasons.org and the Discovery Institute) are liars… they lie about their true motives, they lie about science, and (probably a worse sin to the religious) they lie about religion too. I have very little respect for them in this regard — to them the ends justify the means, and they have no respect for truth, honesty, or rational thinking. They merely seek to assert their authority by any (legal) means possible, including lying — oops, perjury *is* a crime. You know, like how some of those former Dover school board members (creationists) could face perjury charges for lying to the judge in open court. Which Commandment did they violate there?

But I have great respect for those who take their heartfelt religious beliefs (though I don’t accept them and I find them confusing and illogical) and strive to reconcile them with the reality of science. Kudos to them.

Cheers – Mattus

Hmmm… so Grant *admits* that the website he directed us to is, in his own words, “blatantly old-earth creationist” — yet in the next breath he states that “they DO care about scientific integrity.”

Hunh?! Sounds like hogwash to me… Folks, this is one of the most goofy contradictions I’ve ever seen posted to *any* blog or message board, but it is par for the course for the creationists. They’ll try to rope you in by constantly talking about how they really do care about science, right up until the point where they insist on literal interpretation of this and that in the Bible.

It took me about 5 seconds to see through Grant Miller’s arguments here. And what’s worse is that he did it in his own words — I suppose it’s true about what they say can happen when you give some people enough rope. They hang themselves… just like what happened in Dover, PA.

And one last thing — how does Grant Miller suddenly go from a discussion of “scientific integrity” directly into talking about “misconceptions about the Bible”? I thought this was about *science*, not religion, right?

As for the Bible, I’ve studied it extensively for many years — its writings, its origins, its history, and how it has been edited repeatedly and interpreted every which way over the centuries. I must agree with Irishman when he states that there are a great number of Christians who are completely ignorant of the historical nature of the Bible. For those of you who are interested in a very good historical background & scholarly analysis of the Bible (without the proselytizing), check out these resources as a good place to start:

“Secret Origins of the Bible” by Tim Callahan and

the following lectures on CD by Dr. Bart Ehrman (available via The Teaching Company at http://www.teach12.com)

“The Historical Jesus”
“From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity”
“Lost Christianities: Christian Scriptures and the Battles over Authentication”

And here’s a good website which points out numerous flaws in a literal interpretation of the Bible (like that pushed at http://www.reasons.org and by Grant Miller) by exposing the fallacies and contradictions therein…

The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

But now we’re talking about religion again… oh well, I suppose that’s how Grant Miller wanted it, seeing as how he made the magical transition from real science to religiously-based poppycock “science” by trying to convince us that groups pushing old-earth creationism are actually concerned about scientific integrity.

Yup, that and he also has some swampland for sale in Arizona – cheap

Cheers — Mattus

I do take personal glee at seeing religion cast away – not just Christianity, but any religion. That’s because I think religion is deceptive and conformist and dogmatic and nonsensical (with all that supernatural stuff). But that has nothing to do with the Dover case or ID. The Dover case is specifically about government pressure to teach a particular religious agenda. That is a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution. It is a blatant violation of the intent of the founders of this country, who were very clear on numerous occasions that freedom of conscience requires that the government take a neutral stance on religion. A neutral stance means the government cannot advocate for any particular religion, nor can it advocate for or against religion in general. Pushing a Christian agenda (and a somewhat narrow one at that) is not acceptable.

In order to determine whether the Dover school board was pushing a Christian agenda or offerring valid alternative science, the court had to evaluate the history and merits of ID directly. Upon doing so, testimony from witnesses from both sides proved that ID is a sectarian agenda, and thus not valid science.

Upholding the Constitution is not casting religion away. It is preventing the advocation of one particular religion.

As for teaching kids ALL arguments, are we supposed to teach them that the Earth is flat? That elves live in forests? That disease is not caused by germs, but by being bad? That homeopathy is just as valid as chemistry? That Africans are lesser peoples because they are descended from Ham? That the Egyptians managed to cross the Atlantic and colonize South America long before Europe began to form cities? That the Holocaust has been exaggerated and the Nazis really only killed a couple hundred Jews and social misfits? Just because there are different ideas doesn’t mean all ideas are equally valid and of equal worth.

Grant Miller Said:
>Just as many Christians have misconceptions about science, etc., many non-Christians have many misconceptions about the Bible, etc.

I suppose many non-Christians have many misconceptions about the Bible. But then, many Christians have many misconceptions about the Bible, too, so it isn’t really meaningful. How, you ask? Well, they tend to get them from the people teaching them about the Bible. You don’t believe me? Consider that Baptists think Catholics have misconceptions about the Bible, and Catholics think Methodists have misconceptions, and Methodists think Jehovah’s Witnesses have misconceptions, and Jehovah’s Witnesses think everyone else is wrong. Also consider that many Christians are unaware of the history of “the Bible”, and how it came to be written, collected, translated, and approved.

most school curriculum decisions are decided on the state and local level. as a christian, i would not want my child taught the hindu creation story as scientific fact, just because i might happen to live in an area predominantly hindu (not even mentioning that i don’t believe in a literal interpretation of genesis, and wouldn’t want that taught either).

i’m sure there are even some fundamentalist christians who, if they really looked at what the “id theory” postulates, would have serious problems with it since it would likely end up describing an earth much older than 10,000 or so years as well.

i don’t know how many other religious folk like me read your site (or, for that matter, listen to penn gillette’s new radio show – free plug! ), but know that there are far more reasonable religious people out there than internet message boards would suggest…

And teaching kids all arguments is not what school is about. Should we teach them that Zeus is a viable alternative to Allah, or God, or whomever? Should we teach them geocentrism as an alternative to heliocentrism?

And where did I say I was casting away all religion? In fact, I said quite the opposite, demanding freedom of religion and freedom from it. I think you are reading your own prejudices into what I wrote.

Nature does not need evolution or God to put on such a beautiful show….

And to the creationists who keep posting here:

1. http://www.reasons.org is a blatantly ID-creationist site – give up any hope of appearing objective when you post that link. This is obvious when you see their “About Us” page where they say (among other things)…

“Founded in 1986, Reasons To Believe is an international, interdenominational ministry established to communicate the uniquely factual basis for belief in the Bible as the error-free Word of God and for personal faith in Jesus Christ as Creator and Savior.”

Hmmm, yup – a ringing scientific endorsement if I ever saw one [sarc].

2. quit using the same tired old argument that one cannot both accept evolution and believe in god(s). It is a fallacy, and you know it. You probably know lots of people who are both religious and accept the science of evolution. Want proof that religious people accept evolution? Check out this link to the Clergy Letter Project, which is publishing a statement endorsed by over 10,000+ clergy nationwide that states they see no conflict between evolution and their religion…

http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/clergy_project.htm

Anyway, on to the article.

Cheers – Mattus

>>>>>>>>>>>>

Discovery Institute tries to “swift-boat” Judge Jones
by Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke

As predictable as sunup, the Discovery Institute reacted to their drubbing in Federal Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board, 20 December 2005) without the least introspection. One would have thought that after six weeks of testimony by both sides in the public debate (there is, of course, no scientific debate) about evolution and intelligent design, both sides would say, “Okay, we gave it our best shot,” and at least have the common decency to read the Court’s decision before spinmeistering.

Instead, the DI immediately tried to “swift-boat” the judge.

Before the electrons on the pdf of the judge’s decision were even cool, the DI released the following salvo:

The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work,” said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.
In the DI’s lexicon, “activist” means someone who says or does things you don’t like: the ACLU, the NCSE, Americans United, and … oh. A Republican judge from central Pennsylvania.

Of course, the DI folks aren’t activists. They just sit in their think-tank, performing first-class research for the best scientific journals, waiting for the awards and accolades from the scientific and educational communities to come in. (So far, they’re still waiting for the awards, and we’re still waiting for the research.) Apparently it’s not “activist” for the Discovery Institute to send their own “Icons of Evolution” video to the Dover Area School Board (a video that DASB member William Buckingham apparently bullied teachers to watch – twice – and was clearly an inspiration to Buckingham in his various efforts to squelch the teaching of evolution in Dover. Apparently it’s not “activist” to send DI staff to Dover to counsel the school board on how to promote ID in science classes.

Now, wait. The DI staunchly maintains that it never said that ID should be taught as science. But it should be mentioned in science classrooms, apparently, as a stealth “alternative” to evolution. This is the sneaky approach. Don’t bother to establish ID as science in the scientific community; don’t bother to tell anyone you’re teaching a sectarian religious view; just slide it in on the QT. ID really is, as one observer noted, “the faith that dare not speak its name.” That’s now a finding of fact in Federal Court.

To Teach ID, or Not to Teach ID?

On the other hand, there is often a difference between what the DI does and what it says it does. Take, for instance, this passage from Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curricula: A Legal Guidebook, by DI associates David K. DeWolf and Mark E. DeForrest, and the Director of the DI’s Center for Science and Culture, Stephen C. Meyer: “school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution — and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.”

Hard to see where you’d fit that in, except in a science class.

It is also worth looking at what the Discovery Institute was telling its donors in 1999, based on the now-infamous “Wedge Strategy” document.

Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.
And yet, when this event finally occurred – in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2004, exactly five years after the 1999 Wedge Strategy – the Discovery Institute claimed that they did not support putting ID into science curricula, and furthermore they had never suggested such a thing.

“Activist” Judge John Jones III

Although the DI uses the same public relations firm as the “Swift Boat Veterans” did, they picked the wrong guy to keelhaul. Judge John E. Jones III is a churchgoer, a lifelong Republican, appointed to his Federal position by President George W. Bush. As a New York Times piece recently noted:

His supporters include Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and his mentor is Tom Ridge, the former governor of Pennsylvania and homeland security secretary.

Arlen Specter, Tom Ridge, and Rick Santorum. Not exactly your typical liberal coalition. Wait a minute! Isn’t Santorum the one who tried to introduce Intelligent Design into the “No Child Left Behind” Act? Doesn’t the DI pull his strings when it comes to pronouncements on science and education? These are heavy hitters, well connected to the current Administration. From the outset, an impartial observer might have expected that Judge Jones would be predisposed toward the Bush-endorsed concept if ID. Let’s see what else the Times found out.
But Judge Jones is praised by people on both sides of the aisle as a man of integrity and intellect who takes seriously his charge to be above partisanship. He appears to define himself less by his party affiliation than by his connection to the Pennsylvania coal town where he still lives, and to a family that grabbed education as a rope to climb out of the anthracite mines, and never let go. Clifford A. Rieders, a lawyer in Williamsport who is past president of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, said he had found Judge Jones to be “moderate, thoughtful” and “universally well regarded.”

“I think that his connections are not so politicized, nor is he so ambitious that he would be influenced in any way by those kinds of considerations,” said Mr. Rieders, a Democrat.

Mr. Ridge called him a “renaissance man” and “the right kind of person to be presiding over a trial of such emotional and historic importance.” He added, “I don’t think he goes in with a point of view based on anything prior. I really don’t. I think he loves the challenge.”
And all this testimony came in before the decision was rendered.

The Judge saw ID collapse before him

The DI’s Dr. West went on to say of the Judge, “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.” Not so. The DI was not on trial here; the Judge was merely repeating statements of the defense’s own witnesses, including Drs. Behe and Minnich, who are fellows of the DI. They acknowledged under oath that ID cannot qualify as science unless the definition of science is completely changed to admit the supernatural. Behe acknowledged that under his definition, astrology would equally qualify as science. They admitted that ID is more plausible to those that believe in God – a rather peculiar feature of an allegedly scientific theory. They insisted that the “Designer” does not have to be supernatural, but were unable to come up with any credible account or hypothesis of what such a “natural Designer” would be, or how to test for its existence.

And this is after over a decade of research by the self-described “nation’s leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design.”

Not a single peer reviewed paper proposes any concrete test or advances any solid testable evidence regarding a Designer. Every major scientific organization in the nation has come out against ID, saying that it has no business masquerading as science. This week, Science magazine, the premier journal of American science, named Evolution as the Scientific Breakthrough of 2005, and specifically lambasted ID as non-scientific. Dr. Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, said in an interview with Reuters, “I think what arouses the ire of scientists (about intelligent design) is … the notion that it belongs in the same universe as scientific analysis. — It’s a hypothesis that’s not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea. That’s just not possible with a notion that’s as much a belief in spirituality as intelligent design is.”

For over a decade, the DI has claimed that their notion of ID deserves pride of place alongside conventional evolutionary theory. But they have refused to publish the peer-reviewed papers, to present their “research” at scientific conferences, to be held accountable in the scientific community on any terms whatsoever. This week they were held accountable in federal court. The results weren’t pretty for ID supporters. It’s hard to find a single sentence in the Judge’s 139-page decision that offers succor to the DI crowd. It’s even harder to find a place where his judgment erred with respect to the facts. Unless, of course, the defense’s scientific experts were not representing ID accurately.

Throughout the trial, Judge Jones let the attorneys on both sides draw out the testimony they wanted from their witnesses. He seldom intervened in the questioning, and did not sustain objections from either side unless they were rooted in correct procedural law. He frequently said, “well, this is a bench trial, so I’ll allow it” to let both sides present the fullest possible explication of their views. Both sides had the chance to put everything on the table. They chose their own witnesses; none were peremptorily excluded (though the defense fought ferociously to keep Barbara Forrest off the witness stand, knowing the damage she would do by revealing the religious origins of ID).

Witnesses for both sides had to speak under oath about their side of the case. The judge did not impugn the testimony of any expert witness, although he did have some choice words for the prevarications of some former members of the Dover School Board.

The DI cannot claim that ID didn’t have a fair opportunity to be represented on an equal footing with science in a public arena. It had its fair chance, but for mysterious reasons, most of the DI’s “expert witnesses” were withdrawn. Apparently there are too few ID supporters with expertise in the appropriate areas, because no one was offered by the defense to replace the no-shows.

Judge Jones was clearly as unimpressed as the scientific community is by the representations of the Discovery Institute’s witnesses for the defense. Michael Behe’s remonstrations about the scientific validity of ID were characterized as “mere assertions,” with no empirical evidence. The plaintiffs showed that Behe, who was on the stand for three days, was unaware of published, peer-reviewed evidence that demolished his favorite “irreducibly complex” notions such as the bacterial flagellum and the blood clotting proteins. In fact, presented with a mountain of published work to the contrary, he merely sniffed that it was inadequate, though there was no evidence that he had even read it. The plaintiffs’ testimony about macroevolution, exaptation, natural selection, the fossil record, classification, and homology went completely unrebutted. Moreover, the Judge added (opinion, page 84), “the Court has been presented with no evidence” that either Defendants’ testifying experts or any other ID proponents have any expertise in these areas. Which we knew all along.

Based on all of this, Judge Jones ruled bluntly and clearly that ID is not science. ID proponents’ most common complaint is that Jones dared to rule on this larger scientific issue, rather than restricting himself to the religious purposes of the school board. They claim that it is not a judge’s role to interpret science. But judges make these kinds of decisions every day, when presented with expert testimony to work from. They do it every time they have to decide a case involving criminal forensics, medical malpractice, DNA fingerprinting or paternity tests, product liability, environmental issues, or a host of other issues that arise in a modern technological society. When the scientific evidence and the consensus of the scientific community are as clear as they were in this case, why should the judge refrain from ruling on the scientific status of ID?

In fact, Judge Jones really had no choice but to rule on whether or not ID was science. The plaintiffs asked him to rule on exactly this, and so did the defense. The Thomas More Legal Center’s chief counsel for the defense, Richard Thompson, acknowledged that like the attorneys for the plaintiffs, the defense had asked the judge to rule on the question of whether ID was science. They staked their whole case on the notion that ID was legitimate science, and that therefore teaching it had a legitimate secular purpose and secular effect, and this outweighed any religious goals that individual board members might have had. ID advocates can’t complain now, after the fact, that the judge exceeded his charge. He did exactly what both sides asked him to do. If the ID supporters didn’t take that brief more seriously, they should have.

The Party’s Over for the Discovery Institute

So where does Judge Jones’s decision leave ID? Rejected by the scientific community, rejected by organizations of science educators, and now rejected in Federal Court. What does the DI’s William Dembski say about that?

“I think the big lesson is, let’s go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion,” Dembski said in a New York Times interview. “The burden is on us to produce.”

Indeed. That’s what the scientists have been saying all along. And in the same Times article, Richard Thompson appeared to agree. “A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid. — It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that.”

He’s right. And one of these days, there may even be some research that convinces the scientific community that ID is testable and not purely religious. Until then, it cannot claim status as a scientific theory, and it does not belong in the science classroom – as Judge Jones and the scientific community both recognized.

The fact is, the Discovery Institute took a terrible beating in this trial. “Intelligent Design,” their main industry, which they have peddled relentlessly for over a decade as the Next Great Idea in science, was revealed as religion, not science at all. The DI’s “wedge strategy” was exposed and established as a crypto-fundamentalist Christian ideology of politics and social change. Their alleged “experts” withdrew, leaving the defense in confusion. Their amicus briefs were ignored by the Judge, and their attempt to append the “expert witness report” of Stephen Meyer, who had canceled his testimony, was angrily rebuffed. And after the trial, the DI’s Washington office head, Mark Ryland, publicly squabbled with the TMLC’s Richard Thompson, who claimed that the DI had promised support and then cut and run.

It’s over for the Discovery Institute. Turn out the lights. The fat lady has sung. The emperor of ID has no clothes. The bluff is over. Oh sure, they’ll continue to pump out the blather. They’ll find more funding, at least for a while, from some committed ideologue or another. But no one with any objectivity will take them seriously any longer as scientists. They had their fair chance, and they blew it.

And in the end, they couldn’t have done anything else. Because there is no science to ID; it’s just polemics. And now that’s been settled in Federal Court.

Copyright Kevin Padian and Nick Matzke 2006

January 4, 2006

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/127_discovery_institute_tries_to__1_4_2006.asp

Maybe it’s because we’re tired of having other people’s beliefs shoved in our faces. Maybe it’s because we’re tired of being called immoral and evil because we don’t believe in someone else’s chosen deity. Maybe it’s because we feel a bit edgy when the President of the United States tells us that we are not really Americans because we are atheists. Maybe if fewer people injected their religious beliefs into every conversation, we wouldn’t feel so defensive about it. Maybe if people were content to have their own silent prayer instead of expecting everyone to participate in a joint one at communal and government sanctioned events we wouldn’t feel the need to make a big deal of it. Maybe if people would refrain from making disparaging remarks like “There are no atheists in foxholes or hurricane zones,” we wouldn’t feel the need to point out how incorrect and insulting the remarks are. Maybe if we didn’t hear the word “God” or “Jesus” every five minutes, we wouldn’t flinch so hard.

>(Please note this is STILL called the “Theory”, not “Fact”).

Your ignorance is showing. We’ve been over this before here numerous times. This “theory not fact” canard is so worn out it needs a nap. “Evolution” is a comprehesive explanation. It is a “theory” in the same sense of “the Germ Theory of Disease”.

>Many have also said that ID and Theory of evolution should be taught in science classes. Excuse me; but aren’t they both philosophy rather than science? Shouldn’t they both rather be taught in the proposed comparitive religion classes? Or maybe even in a separate philosophy class?

I think perhaps you are getting confused over Evolution and the metaphysical implications of Evolution. Admittedly, it’s easy enough to do since many Evolution proponents do as well. I also think you might be using “Theory of Evolution” in the broad sense of a naturalist explanation for the origins of the universe and life, rather than in the more scientific sense as an explanation for the means and methods for the diversity of life. Evolution is an explanation of how life develops and changes. The origins problem has not been answered yet, though it is being studied scientifically.

>Unfortunately so many in the world subscribe to the “what I believe is God given, what you believe is opinion” state of mind. Until we can allow each other the freedom to differ in our beliefs, we will have heated discussions, not only about ID and evolution, but about so many things that can lead to far more serious results that disagreement on a blog.

That much we do agree on.

You would think so. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case. I think too many people are taking it at face value (Hey, ID = God and I believe in God so I believe in ID) and not evaluating the content critically.
ID is playing on the general religious beliefs of the majority of Americans and the undercurrent of dissatisfaction over Evolution that was fueled as much by statements such as “Evolution means there is no role for God in creation,” as by the Biblical Literalists. It is difficult to avoid the metaphysical implications of Evolution, but it is the debate over those metaphysical implications that has given the Biblical Literalists so much power.

Dave Sewell Said:
>Like Bob and Leonn, I agree that a comparative religions class is what is needed. The problem is that it will never happen because extremists are afraid that kids might make up their own mind!
…
The problems begin when “Johnny” who was raised as a strict (insert religion or belief here) sees something that hits home with him, and he begins to question what he has been told his whole life. He goes home and tells his family that he no longer wants to participate in (insert again). The family goes berzerk, calls the organizers of the workshop and threatens to sue because they have “brainwashed” their child.

Yes, I’ve seen it happen, thankfully not firsthand. It’s a shame and ironic when even parents who support teaching “critical thinking” then get all worked up when their children apply those critical thinking skills to their religious beliefs. I think sometimes people don’t even know what critical thinking means, they just think it sounds good to make their children smart.

Please note this is STILL called the “Theory”, not “Fact”

just to torque people up, because surely someone as knowledgeable and well read as yourself would be well aware that a scientific theory carries 99.9999999999999999999% of the weight of fact, and are well aware that the colloquial way you’ve suggested the term is used in that quote is known by everyone with an understanding of the English language to be incorrect.

1. It is a logical fallacy to denote the lack of belief in a deity as just another belief system. The only thing it is good for is to infuriate atheists.

2. The fundamental difference between science and religion is not in what they say, but how they get to their respective statements about the world. Every scientific theory worth its salt must be falsifyable. This is not true about religion. If you don’t see the importance of this difference, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

3. It is nice to have the freedom to believe whatever you want, but we have a responsibility to educate our children such that they can tell the difference between “knowledge” offered by religion and the knowledge obtained via the scientific method.

As a Brit, who has been following the ID thing with much concern, I rejoice at the court decision. On this side of the pond ID has thankfully had, so far, not nearly as much impact as in America, but it is starting to make itself felt. Not far from where I live, in Sommerset, there is a place called ‘Noah’s Ark’. Ostensibly it is a kiddies farm and petting zoo, but the owner is using the whole opperation to promote Young Earth Creationism, Literal interpretation of Genesis, and ID. The scarry thing is, he describes himself as a Scientist and advertises the Ark as an Educational establishment. A challenge has been organised to revoke the charitable status, and thus tax-relief of the farm.
The UK does not have a written constitution, and with our current PM’s fondness for faith-based education, I have fears for the future!

I personally have no problem with people believing in what they want to beleive in, my problem comes when they want to force it on me or tell me that they are right and I am wrong.

>>>>>>
Here’s what William Dembski said after the Dover ruling:

“This galvanizes the Christian community,” said William Dembski, a leading proponent at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank that promotes intelligent design research. “People I’m talking to say we’re going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.’’

Despite his previous posturing that ID has nothing to do with religion, it is pretty clear what he, and others behind the ID movement, are really after. He must have forgotten to disguise his motives in the heat of the moment.
>>>>>>

Yup, that one comment pretty much lays the ID-movement’s motives bare for all to see…

The group Americans United for Separation of Church & State, one of the plaintiffs in the Dover case, has a lot of interesting info on this on their blog:

http://blog.au.org/2005/12/poorly_designed.html

Among the interesting tidbits is the fact that some of the former Dover school board members may actually be brought up on perjury charges for lying on the stand. In addition, some politicians (namely Se. Rick Santorum) who were cuddling up to the creationists are now running full-tilt away from them.

Cheers – Mattus