Having lost trying to ban the teaching of evolution in science courses in public schools then having lost in their demand that creationism be taught as science, the religious zealots are now demanding that creationism, in the new guise of "intelligent design", be taught as science along side the theory of evolution. Basically, it is creationism without overtly citing god as the creator of everything. I've no problem with creationism, "intelligent design", or any of the other fables and fairy tales being taught in college courses on religion, however, teaching it as science or even presenting it in a science course is appalling. There is no scientific evidence to even point toward the hypothesis that a supreme being created everything- just try finding article in valid/peer-reviewed texts or journals which support it as a scientific theory.
No, their belief in their god being the creator of everything is strictly, to use their lingo in another realm, faith-based. It's proponents are merely carrying on the sordid tradition of previous small-minded and ignorant (there is a difference....) people like them of resorting to the supernatural and metaphysical to explain things they do not/will not/can not understand. Throughout history, one sees these folks objecting to any and all explanations of physical phenomena which conficts with what they "believe". At least now they are not buring those with different views at the stake although more than a few would gleefully do so if they thought they could get away with it....
The christian fundamentalists/zealots also resort to abusing and twisting science in an attempt to "prove" science is fallacious. Citing past scientific beleifs which later turned out to be untrue, they leap to the conclusion that any and all scientific theories which conflict with what they say their bible says are untrue. They also point to questions for which science currently has no "answers" as evidence of it's weakness and, ergo, the strength of their flavor of religion. As an example of this, supporters of creationism make the "argument" that, since cosmology has no consensus theory or even working hypothesis indicating the source of the singularity in the big bang theory, god created must have done it. It is equally valid (and, to me, equally plausible) to argue that our the universe is the slime trail of a great cosmic slug which currently lurks beyond the quasars. Christians with a bit more mental capacity and knowledge of the physical world and science use the lack of a consensus cosomological theory on what existed before or "created" the singularity to say, in effect, that science hasn't yet "proven" their god does not exist. I can buy that, but, again, science doesn't say a gaint slug wasn't involved!
-----
If the small-minded and ignorant christian zealots win in their mission
to teach creationism BS as science, what will they embodened to demand
next? Some things they could likewise demand be taught or practiced
in schools since they are in thier infallable and literally true bible
(from a mere few minutes
searching
the bible):
I think the majority of christian fundamentalists of the stripe which are demaning the teaching of creationism basically consider science a threat to what they think their bible teaches. On perhaps a subconscience level (due to their meager mental abilities), this causes at least some of them to question their entire belief system- as well it should. Not only do they object to and deny the validity of scientific theories such as evolution, they basically object to the scientific method as a means of discovery. Just look at how many of these scientifically stupid and ignorant zealots don't understand and generally confuse the concepts of facts, laws, theories and hypotheses. I often wonder if they actually were awake during science courses. OTHO, maybe they attended private christian schools... Anyway, their reliance on what they say thier bible says as the fount from which all knowledge, morals, etc must issue causes them to be utterly blind to one intellectual beauty of the scientific method- it demands that theories which conflict with what is known be modified or discarded.
-----
Having POed the christian zealot faction of the ripublican party and
thereby hurt his chances at becoming president by crawfishing on federal
funding of stem cell research, the idiot Bill Frist has weighted-in in
favor of teaching "intelligent design". When the subject came up
in a Comcast news interview, he backed teaching this utter BS as science
in public schools saying:
"I think in a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of
fact, of science, including faith." What's next, him demanding
that BS such as the "evil vapors" diesase theory or that laying hands on
the sick is a sure cure be taught in medical schools?
The above ratifies what Rosa Brooks wrote in her thoughtful 8/27/05 LA Times piece, "Not Your Daddy's Creationists". The piece illuminates the (for my want of better words...) hypocricy/inconsistency/irony of the right-wingnuts. In the '80s and '90s they railed against the "relativism" of "liberals" which, in their twisted little minds, meant the refusal to accept the existence of absolute truth- i.e. a refusal to blindly believe exactly what they believed 'cause their bible says so. Now they are demanding that those opposed to "intelligent design" being taught in public schools acquiesce to its being taught as science since (per Brooks), "....no one ought to claim a monopoly on truth, and that in the interests of intellectual and moral pluralism, "alternatives" to evolution should get a fair hearing in schools". Some snippets from the Brooks piece:
Sometimes it seems like secular intellectuals just can't win. In the 1980s and '90s, they were attacked by the right for their "relativism"- an alleged refusal to accept the existence of absolute truth. Today, they're under attack once more, only this time the right is mad because secular intellectuals aren't relativist enough. At any rate, that appears to be the charge put forward by conservatives who advocate the teaching of so-called intelligent design.-----These are not your daddy's creationists. When scientists and other members of the reality-based community declare that evolution is the only valid and provable account of our planet's natural history, intelligent design boosters don't cite the Bible. Instead, they earnestly insist that no one ought to claim a monopoly on truth, and that in the interests of intellectual and moral pluralism, "alternatives" to evolution should get a fair hearing in schools.
<snip>
So it's a tad ironic that conservatives and the religious right are now arguing that intelligent design should be taught on the grounds of intellectual pluralism. Needless to say, from the perspective of virtually all reputable scientists, evolution isn't just one theory among many, it's the only scientifically proven account of the origin and development of life on Earth. Denying evolution isn't merely "another perspective." It's like insisting that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that the moon is inhabited by little green guys. Whatever happened to truth?