Parents in Pennsylvania are seeking to block the teaching of intelligent design in their children’s schools.
The [Dover township, Pennsylvania] school board, represented by the Thomas More Law Center, a religious-based nonprofit firm, took the position that this was about freedom of speech.
“Intelligent Design theory is really science in its purest form,” said Pat Gillen, a lawyer for the board. “It promotes the search for knowledge that embodies the essence of a liberal education.”
This argument is part of repackaging ID. Not only do proponents seek to distance themselves from the Christian god. They seek to change the actual definition of science, from hypothesis testing using empirical evidence of the natural world to a more general search for knowledge. This, of course, includes everything that is researched and taught at universities and schools. I guess we no longer need separate arts or humanities faculties. Everything is science.
How does accepting ID as science distance proponents from the Christian god? Are they not just proving themselves devout believers? By changing the definition of science, and thereby by extention our whole acceptance of “true” and “false”, do people not take upon themselves god-like qualities? And why is it that religion seeks to overcome/overpower science? Has “science” become so powerful in our society that religion can no longer stand alone as a seperate and wholly unrelated discipline? And is there literature to support that, because I have sure never found any. On a lighter note, citizens in Kansas have come up with what seems like an equally viable alternative to ID. I am sure that the Flying Spaghetti Monster would agree that his existence is scientifically relevant and true…yes, the flying spaghetti monster, changing scientific data with his “noodly appendages”…check out http://www.venganza.org/
Proponents need to distance ID from creationism so they say that ID has no god in it. Good point about changing the definition of science.