[extropy-chat] against ID

[gts]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 13:12:20 -0500, Brent Allsop <allsop at extropy.org>  
wrote:

> I completely agree with this:
>
> "Scientists have to get off this kick that science and religion are
> completely distinct magisteria that have nothing to do with each other.
> Quite the contrary; religion (at least in its common Western forms) goes
> around making claims about how the world works, and it's perfectly
> appropriate to judge such claims by the same standards that we judge any
> other suggested hypotheses about nature."

The real question here is "What should we teach in science class?"

As Behe himself was forced to admit in court in Pa a couple of weeks ago,  
by his definition of science (which removes the requirement that science  
be about natural explanations), the theory of astrology qualifies as  
science.

By his reasoning, we should we teach astrology as an alternative to  
psychology for the same reason we should teach ID as an alternative to  
evolution.

And they're still telling the same old lies of their Creation Science  
predecessors... no transitional fossils, etc, and trying to frame the  
issue in terms of free speech when it's really about proper education.


-gts