Image via Wikipedia
Some say that only a small number of Christians believe in Creation (Personally I do not think this can be backed up with any sort of accurate data.) and that ID is a disguised version of Creation that was developed in order to ‘slip’ Creation into public schools.
Evolutionists prefer to take this approach to Intelligent Design although there is much evidence that it isn’t this at all. With this approach, evolutionist believe they have won the battle, considering how the “Supreme” court has handled the matter with the rulings made since 1947 that have consistently ruled against any public recognition of religion or deity. Most profess to believe (and have convinced their followers that) Creation is a religion. If it can be called religion then those who make mention of such a taboo subject can immediately be subjected to a disciplinary action. If asked what religion ID or even Creationism is they would actually be hard-pressed to answer. A religion needs to be identified by its creed, doctrine, practices, and/or teachings. I suggest that even if ID is a version of Creationism, neither of them are religions, but rather tenets of many religions.
Those who believe that ID is Creationism in disguise believe also that people like Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe, and those at the Discovery Institute have sufficiently ‘incriminated’ themselves to the point that there is no reason to discuss the matter. Intelligent Design is not science, but rather a religious idea or theory and we must keep this idea of intelligence out of the classroom.
I am going to be so bold as to suggest that ideas belong in classrooms and certainly an idea of this magnitude should be considered by students!
Philip Johnson is known as the father of the theory of Intelligent Design. He said a great deal more thanwhat those who hate the idea of ID like to quote. He has had two strokes and is still extremely able. Here is a short paragraph written by Dr. Johnson. His teachings are very interesting and may be read on the link provided:
A philosophy of naturalism or materialism is what generates the Darwinian theory. It’s what generates the certainty that only unintelligent natural forces were involved in evolution, which is to say in the creative process that brought our kind into existence as well as all the animals and all the plants. That is all a non-negotiable claim on their part. And why is it a non-negotiable claim? Because if the naturalistic starting point isn’t valid—if it isn’t completely correct—then something else must have happened. What is that something else? It’s something that they don’t like that might get a foothold in science itself.
It is the last sentence that seems to strike fear into the heart of every evolutionist.This fascinates me. Aristotle is quoted as saying:
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Since we know that students are able to think, interpret, and draw conclusions, should we fear allowing them access to information? What is it about the mention of Intelligent Design or even Creationism that is too dangerous in the minds of evolutionists for students to hear. Do modern day scientists disagree with Aristotle? Should students not be allowed to read the essays of Dr. Philip Johnson?
We are not the first generation to attempt to keep information from the minds of students, but we are probably the first generation to do so while calling the practice ‘good science.’
Michael DeBakey said:
The natural history of science is the study of the unknown. If you fear it you’re not going to study it and you’re not going to make any progress.
Certainly the origin of man is an area that is unknown in so much as it predates written history. Yet I believe it is fear that would shut out any mention of creation or intelligence in a science classroom. Darwin, himself, probably would not approve of this.
Should we continue the policy that triggered the video by Ben Stein, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed?
When we clear away all the political rhetoric and stop to think about what we have done in the USA, we have allowed generations to grow up in institutions of learning where an entire body of thought and knowledge has been kept secret.
I suggest that we in America have become like the people Paul described in Romans 1:22:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…
We have confused our most prized possessions, our children by allowing them to read:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
But failing to teach them of Intelligent Design in nature.
Jlue's Weblog - A Christian Perspective 
There are a variety of views of ID among scientists. Most acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that the ID community is comprised mostly of creationists trying to sneak creationism into the public school curriculum. Much of this evidence was presented at the Dover trial – most comically including the crude word-processing mistakes that proved that the ID textbook that was being championed there was a hastily reworked creationist textbook wherein references to the word “Creationists” were replaced with the words “design proponents” – resulting in an intermediate edit of the book with a number of instances of the new word “Cdesign proponentsists”. And including Phillip Johnson’s “wedge document”.
Most Christians do believe in creation (a Bible doctrine), but many fewer than you would guess are committed to the fundamentalist interpretation of that doctrine that rules out evolution as best understood by the natural evidence. Another hint that intelligent design is a prettied up version of creationism is that there are almost no “design proponents” who do not hold to the particular interpretation of the Bible that requires separate creation of most life forms, though many at least acknowledge the evidence for an ancient universe.
In the United States – yes – most Christians (and many “nons”) are at least sympathetic to the fundamentalist doctrines about creation, and hold science at arms distance on matters related to the history of life. Worldwide, however, there are a large number of Christians who accept the doctrine of creation and wholeheartedly embrace the science of natural history, rejecting the type of creationism that is associated with science denial and naive views of Bible interpretation.
Going back to the original point… scientists are not monolithic in their stance regarding ID. Many consider it wholly unscientific, because (at least according to the formulations of some proponents) it cannot be subject to falsification tests. Others consider it very poorly done science – with inadequate research (this came up time and again at the Dover trial, and the experts for the ID side were embarrassed to admit that virtually no research had been done in the field), and no persuasive evidence in its favor.
Without considering the possibility that it would be unconstitutional to do so, I’m not sure sure that there is much that can be said in favor of it. Yes, including it would “include the view”. And there can be value in occasionally presenting views that are inconsistent with the evidence in a science class, but generally speaking it would be as an example of how a scientific effort went wrong. I’m not sure that anyone would want to use religious views as an example of that in a public school curriculum. Phlogiston, ether, and the Millikan oil drop experiment serve admirably without stepping on anyone’s toes.
LikeLike
Now I think it will be ‘interesting’ to say the least if we are present to see ‘scientists’ explain to God how they refused to admit any knowledge of Creation and kept information and ideas away from students in government schools because the information was not subject to man-made falsification tests. 🙂
LikeLike
That’s an easy one to answer: “You gave us minds, some of us chose to use them. The others became fundamentalists.”
LikeLike
Since manmade falsification tests are relevant to the subject of science, while manmade literalist hermeneutics of the Bible are more relevant to television evangelism, I doubt that God will be puzzled enough to need an explanation of why the one rather than the other was taught in science classes. 🙂
LikeLike
I am not familiar with tele-evangelist, but one thing I do know, God is never taken by surprise and if He asks man a question it isn’t because He doesn’t know the answer. Of course He knows why evolutionist and others do not allow the name of God mentioned in public schools. He isn’t puzzled by anything we do or fail to do.
There is not just an issue concerning whether to ‘teach’ Intelligent Design, there is a battle or fight designed to stop the mention of a Designer.
LikeLike
A bumper-sticker reply to this – “don’t try to teach your religion to my kids in school and I won’t come teach science to your kids in church”.
Yes, there is a movement afoot to use the coercive power of government to indoctrinate public school-children in fundamentalist versions of Christianity. And, yes, if there is a God, then he likely knows why people resist this. And if that God is wise and good as many religious traditions hold him to be, he approves of such resistance.
LikeLike
I don’t want government schools teaching religion, do you?
Evolutionists cling to the notion or the mantra that if you mention God or Creation you have somehow taught “religion” to students. I know, that is truly absurd, but it is what is happening in public schools. There is no way to get through the wall that ignorance has erected and quite frankly, that is why I think privatizing education is the best answer.
LikeLike
Ok, so you started out arguing that the religion of ID should be taught in schools, and now you say you don’t want religion taught in schools. Does that mean you changed your mind, or that you want it both ways?
I don’t want to change the subject to the question of whether it is permissible in certain contexts to just “mention” God. Let’s talk about whether we do or do not want doctrines like ID taught in school….
LikeLike
And, by the way, I had an excellent biology teacher in high school. I remember that he did “mention” creationism. He said that many people have religious explanations of how life came to be in its modern state, and that some of them rejected evolution. In “mentioning” creationism this way he did not teach us the religious doctrine, he just made us aware of its existence. I don’t think he did anything wrong, or ran afoul of the law or constitution. Is that all you’re talking about? Just saying, “hey – this is the scientific answer, but there are religious ideas out there, too?” Because no – there isn’t anything wrong with that. Your post, and the replies you made to me and others, don’t sound like this at all… you bring up Ben Stein and the Phil Johnson’s beliefs and say, “I am going to be so bold as to suggest that ideas belong in classrooms and certainly an idea of this magnitude should be considered by students!”. So I’m pretty sure you are advocating for the teaching of these beliefs, not just “mentioning” them.
LikeLike
There are some excellent teachers. I cannot recall who taught your biology class.
While we have government schools, as much as the public is able to have input, we need to require science teachers to stick to science facts and the scientific method of discovery. Teaching origins is something that really isn’t appropriate in a public school at this point, especially since the origin of life and matter isn’t something that can be proven in a science lab. If teachers are going to discuss the possibilities, then Creation and Intelligent Design should be included, however, only if the ‘teacher’ is an actual ‘teacher. There are many atheistic evolutionists who should not be allowed to mock Christians in a classroom and sadly this is what would happen in some instances. If those who comment on-line get inside a classroom imagine the direction the lesson would take. This is why I believe it is time to privatize education.
LikeLike
You may not have seen the original post. I started out discussing David Coppedge’s being fired for loaning a co-worker an Intelligent Design video. He isn’t a teacher, he is or was a NASA Jet Propulsion Lab Technology Specialist. The question was asked in regard to whether or not he was discussing religion in the work-place which then begs the bigger question: Does the first amendment give us the right to discuss religion in the workplace? These questions cannot be answered conclusively here because they involve the court systems, so I am thinking on my web-blog as to how they should be resolved.
As for the schools, I want parents to realize we have now reached a point where we cannot trust the government to educate our children. We have good schools in our county and there are some great teachers, but more and more the government is outlining the curriculum and determining what will and will not be taught and how it will be presented. Parents and teachers are realizing this as doors are closing and regulations continue to become heavier.
I meant it when I said that I do not want government schools teaching religion, but then I do not want government schools teaching anything. I do not believe ID is a religion, but apparently evolutionists fear that it may be.
Regardless, it is time to privatize education.
LikeLike
Privatizing education… that’s a tough one. It’s hard to imagine how life would change without an educated populace in the U.S. – and hard to say whether it would be better or worse. In an ideal world, a mostly uneducated U.S. could function as low-tech agrarian economy. A simple agrarian lifestyle has a lot to say for it. But there are drawbacks as well in terms of untreated disease, decreased lifespan, etc. And there is a lot of risk at this point in our history. A few people would still be able to afford private education…. The rest would be committed to some form of blue collar work. It’s hard to imagine how that would lead to anything else but a total plutocracy. Not that we are very far from that as it is.
It’s an interesting thing to think about, but I think overall we are better off educating our people.
I don’t see where you’ve given any kind of reasonable case that science education (for those who get it) should exclude natural history. “Can’t be proven in a lab” doesn’t suffice for a case against teaching it, since the science surrounding natural history is extremely well attested from evidence collected in both the laboratory and the field.
I also don’t see where you’ve given any kind of reasonable case that “all possibilities” regardless of scientific merit should be included. There are good reasons for teaching the “possibilities” that do have scientific merit. What reasons do you have for including “possibilities” that lack scientific merit?
LikeLike
Believe it or not I had forgotten that some people do not understand that the private sector can do what the government is doing, only usually they can do it more cost effectively and more productively. Instead of not having an educated populace we would (after 12 years anyway) have the most educated citizenry this country has had in decades. There would have to be a transitional period.
When education is privatized the cost will go down dramatically. Those who live on welfare might need assistance just as they do for food with foodstamps, but all children would be educated. One big difference would be that politics could be taken out of the equation. Teachers would be hired and fired by merit alone. Parents could choose the schools that best educate children. Home-schools could co-op if parents chose to continue to home-school and students could go into a co-op. Where most private schools now are church schools, there would be variety, not just in providers, but also in price range. Competition would force schools to be cost effective. There are so many possibilities and when parents no longer have to pay school taxes, that money could go directly to the school. We will need sponsors in the beginning, but eventually the system will be self supporting. More and more parents are realizing that this is a need and are looking for a way to provide a quality education for their children.
My comments about teaching science were directed toward teaching the origin of life and matter. It is because Creation and Intelligent Design do have merit that these should be included in an origin’s discussion or class. Certainly there are some areas of science where field studies are relevant. Really good teachers do not have trouble determining what is and isn’t appropriate in a science class.
LikeLike
I don’t know if it’s true that private education companies could do the same thing that public education does. Maybe, maybe not. The reason that the U.S. would be uneducated is that most people cannot afford to pay for private education. That was the case before the advent of public education in the U.S., and it remains the case in some developing countries today.
As to whether creationism has scientific merit… I understand your opinion that it does, but the fact that only those who share your commitment to the literalist reading of Genesis share your view that creationism has scientific merit is strong evidence that you are mistaking compatibility with your religious views for scientific merit.
LikeLike
This argument will probably continue as long as the world remains as it is today. Those who are invested in Darwinism will fight to keep it taught as factual. Those who recognize evidence of Intelligent Design will continue to say so unless censorship becomes rigidly enforced.
I am of the opinion that students should be taught more, not less. They are individuals who grow up and are capable of deciding what they will believe. I have even come to believe that if some theories about the origins of life and how life came to be as it is today is withheld questions will continue to arise in the minds of most intelligent beings concerning life and origins. Here are some ideas that should be explored in addition to Darwinism that is currently being taught..
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1551
https://intelligentdesign.org/
LikeLike
“I am going to be so bold as to suggest that ideas belong in classrooms and certainly an idea of this magnitude should be considered by students!”
Hello grandmother of seven grandchildren.
The idea you want to force biology teachers to teach: magical intelligent design creationism.
You know and I know that “intelligent design” are fancy words dishonest Christians use when they really mean “supernatural magic”.
Force biology teachers to teach magic in a science classroom? Are you serious?
I have in the past tried to explain to dishonest Christians why intelligent design equals magic. When a designer makes something out of nothing that’s a magic trick. What else could it be? Usually the Christian science deniers can not understand this simple logic even though any five year old could understand it. I will never understand what Christians are afraid of. They are so cowardly they refuse to understand their own fantasies.
Please understand that whenever a science denier tells a competent biology teacher how to do her job, the biology teacher refuses to cooperate. Honest teachers will never lie to their students and that’s why they won’t waste valuable class time discussing magic, or what liars call design.
LikeLike
While I am not asking a biology teacher to teach anything they do not know or understand, I would love to hear you explain how matter came to exist?
LikeLike
Jlue, I know that when you suggested privatizing education, you weren’t advocating that parents or guardians abdicate educating their children. Ideally, privatizing schools would result in a large number of low-cost private schools to choose from. Those left who couldn’t afford a private school could opt to home school their children during their off hours. Between computer programs, internet, and good text books, even those parents/guardians with a lesser i.q. would have resources to successfully educate their children.
LikeLike
I will add this: Since the majority of parents/guardians have no other choice than government-funded schools, at least not in the foreseeable future, I believe that teachers should be required to address every possibility concerning every subject, origins of universe and evolution included.
In regard to the origin of the universe: teachers should explain that there are many unproven theories, and they should briefly address each theory (scientific as well as religious), and leave it at that.
Regarding origin or humanity: teachers should state that there are some types of evolution that have been scientifically proven, but that it has not been proven that humans evolved from apes, etc.
LikeLike
Al, I truly appreciate your comments and I agree with you on just about everything, but I must make one correction. There are no “government-funded” schools. There are only “tax-payer” funded schools and private schools.The government has no money to fund anything except what they take from citizens in the form of taxes and fees.:) But I knew what you meant.
LikeLike