I'd guess that many churches would allow a scientist to talk about his ideas, though it seems most services aren't designed for that kind of audience participation. I imagine in Sunday school or wherever discussion occurs at a church, a scientist would be allowed to participate. I'd really be surprised if the school system would allow a major theistic derailment of a high school biology class. There is no doubt that the scientific method is important, but unless ID is being thoroughly and dogmatically taught at the expense of more traditionally scientific topics, it seems good to express to high school kids that even some scientists are open to the possibility of God. Scientists are often seen and portrayed as almost exclusively atheistic and I think many kids are left feeling that one way or the other must be chosen. I am not arguing that we shouldn't revere facts and science, just that questioning "facts" isn't necessarily a bad thing. We shouldn't be limited by facts, and I don't think you are exactly arguing that we should be. I am pretty ignorant about ID, but the impressions I get aren't that evolution and the scientific method is demonized; I get the impression that ID is about scientists trying to be open to the idea of God and about scientists that are interested in determining if some relationship exists.
A Baptist church would allow a biologist to speak about evolution? You can't be serious. Not unless they are legally forced to. They hear this already in social studies class, where it is discussed and analyzed. Repeating it in science class does not make it science. Well, that's quite different from teaching "Intelligent design" as a science, which is what we're talking about here. Where do you get that impression? Intelligent design attempts to get supernatural beliefs recognized as science. That is the problem here. I don't care if they believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster if that is their faith. Hallelujah, brother! But don't try to tell me that your religious beliefs are science, unless you go through the time-honored steps necessary to make them openly recognized by science. ID advocates have never done this. Instead they make their case in the media and convince idiot lawmakers to create laws ordaining that teachers accept ID as science, because they say so.
It's funny that you don't see the irony of your own arrogance and inhumility displayed in this sentence. What if I had told you "maybe it is the critical thinking and reason inherent to atheism that inhibits me from arguing from the same vantage as you"? How well would you take that? You might be a humble person, but to say that humility is inherent to Christianity is absolutely hilarious. Christians love trying to force their beliefs into every aspect of our culture. Hence, the law allowing ID to be taught in science class. Or why I can't buy alcohol in my city (Baptists) or why you can't buy wine on Sundays in LA (Catholics), or why they push for abstinence education and condom bans in schools, or why most professed Christians would never vote for an atheist, or why we have to swear on a bible in court, or why we have to say "under god" in our pledge, or why gays cannot marry, or why we have national holidays based on christian holy days, or why adult entertainment is always under assault. Real humble. Hey, it's a democracy, and everyone is entitled to try and shape the country to their wishes, but please don't claim an overall sense of humility being inherent in christianity. The witches, heretics and non-believers who were burned at the stake or tortured by the church would probably disagree. The victims of the Crusades would probably disagree. If humility was inherent in Christianity, we would not even be having this debate, because christians would be ok with only teaching religion in churches, not public schools. Humility is an ideal in Christianity. Not a practice.
*I said many churches. Paranoid? I don't think having a short conversation about ID equates to a derailment of Biology. I don't remember much conversation about God or religion in high school social studies. I grew up with an atheistic parent and I was very underexposed to the ideas of religion. Is it really so much different? I don't see the huge gap. From that link I provided and from the small bits and pieces that I've heard. I have to plead ignorance on what method ID advocates have used and to what degree they have circumvented the scientific method. The small amount I've heard has not caused me great concern; it doesn't seem ID is heaven-bent on bringing us back to the middle ages.
Let me ask you one thing: would you allow people to teach that some people think that gravity is actually sin weighing the soul down, in a science class? No, because we know better. That is the same with Evolution. It has been proven beyond a doubt. ID preachers have circumvented the scientific method by not applying it at all, in any way. There is absolutely no science in their methods, it is all conjecture based on a holy book. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. You keep saying that you don't see the harm in a brief look at ID. How do you know it'll be a brief look? This bill would give teachers the discretion to challenge evolution as they see fit, instead of a standardized curriculum. Seeing that all college biology and sciences classes are framed around evolutionary concepts, are we doing the kids a favor by telling them it might not be true, when it has already been proven beyond a doubt? If many people still believed the earth was flat, would we let them present that as an alternate theory in science class? By your logic, there would be no harm in this. By logic logic this would only be the promotion of ignorance and backward thinking. You cannot allow made up concepts to be presented as an alternative to proven science. There is no benefit to it, other than to satisfy evangelicals who know that ID is only a front for teaching biblical concepts.
Until I look more into it I suppose I shouldn't carry on this argument. You and Red seem overzealous in your description of ID, fashioning it as a devious plot by the church to destroy science. Perhaps you guys are right.
Understandable, but you should continue your search for religion in a church, where they will be happy to indoctrinate you. We go to school for education, which is something different. Well, perhaps you shouldn't engage in a debate unless you understand the topic and feel strongly about it one way or the other. ID is not a plot by the church to destroy science, in fact it fails the biblical creation ideals of many fundamentalists because it doesn't mention creation by God in its attempts to get around the Constitution. many, many scientists are religious but they know how to spearate their faith from their science. ID is an attempt by a few Christian scientists of shallow faith who feel compelled to find a scientific explanation for creation and have been forced to use imagination and envision a supernatural "designer". Not God, you understand, just this omniscient, all-powerfull designer-of-the-universe guy.
