This is what you voted for. You bed your bed. Now sleep in it.
Huh?
What I found interesting about the article was that it specifically said that ID did not advocate the six thousand year old earth. This distinguishes it dramatically from creationism.
When CB posted the original article by Schlafly, she didn't differentiate between creationism and ID so I thought she might find this take interesting. If all ID does is make the point that there could have been intelligence behind evolution rather than austere randomness and people find comfort in that, I don't have a problem with it. Same as I don't have a problem with people believing in God even as I don't. Creationism, OTOH, is a national threat.
From what I've been reading of the Pennsylvania case, the proponents of ID are really pushing creationism and don't make Slate's distinction. Perhaps, too, ID has become code for creationism. Who knows. But if all that school wants to do is to refer kids to books on ID, as defined in Slate, to supplement their evolution coursework, and if they teach the scientific method, too, so kids learn what is science and what is not, I have trouble getting exercised over referrals to ID. If that's all they want to do... |
