RE: Stereotypes and reputations

--- Tim <tpi.hormel@comcast.net> wrote:

> From mahaffy@mtcnet.com:
> > I wonder why YEC or ID brings such an automatic
> negative response
> > from this group. Actually ID's fight to allow
> more than the one
> > secular story of creation [secular neo-Darwinism]
> into the public
> > High School is a battle more of us should be in
> or respecting. I
> > would like the public High School teacher be able
> to use the word
> > Creation instead of Nature and even explain
> Creation from a TE
> > position. I know the current idea that science
> has nothing to do
> > with Creation keeps other stories that I do not
> like out, but in
> > its place the student is being taught that God
> and religion have
> > had nothing to do with Creation.
>
> I wasn't taught that in public school. I was taught
> that science can't
> address whether God was involved, not that God had
> nothing to do with
> the universe.
>
> YEC brings a negative response because essentially
> all its arguments
> were put to rest decades if not centuries ago. I
> think this is the "you
> should really know better by now" response. Given
> that this list is
> sponsored by the American *Scientific* Affiliation,
> the substantial
> non-science components of YEC are difficult to
> accomodate.
>
> There is quite a debate about whether ID is a
> secular story, or even
> whether it has a story at all. There's no there,
> there and it's hard to
> teach something that as yet makes no positive claims
> and provides
> practially no guidance for framing future research.
> Another problem with
> the image of ID'ists only wanting to bring another
> secular story to the
> fore is that to date, all legal battles have been
> caused by groups that
> unabashedly had a *particular* story in mind (The
> "C" word, cloaked with
> varying degrees of success in "new" ID wrappers.
> Upsettingly clumsy).
> It's definitely not ready for prime time yet.
> Perhaps later.

Gilder commented recently

[quote]
''I'm not pushing to have [ID] taught as an
'alternative' to Darwin, and neither are they," he
says in response to one question about Discovery's
agenda. ''What's being pushed is to have Darwinism
critiqued, to teach there's a controversy. Intelligent
design itself does not have any content."[/quote]

Intelligent design itself does not have any content.

Intelligent design, by virtue on its argument from
ignorance is scientifically vacuous. Seems that the DI
is changing course from teaching ID to 'teach the
controversy', a thinly veiled religious concept.
Received on Thu Jul 28 22:42:04 2005