I don't personally think this whole Real Science Vs ID is a serious dichotomy.

Why not just introduce a science and philosophy/ethics courses into our schools. If this is about belief in GOD, then lets provide them with the critical thinking skills to do this.

ID is not science and Science is not a religion.

"If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool

Moses went walking with the staff of wood
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Newton got beaned by the apple good
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Egypt was troubled by the horrible asp
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah"
http://www.twin-music.com/azlyrics/r_file/rem_lyr.html#moon

DOGMA

I find it amazing that no-one dealt with the concept that Brian put forward. That is if we restrict the set of possible explanations to exclude design, we are no longer looking for truth, but merely attempting to enforce a naturalistic worldview.

Sneekeepete, you seem a bit out of date. reconstructionism is not equal to dominionism. Ahmanson is no longer a reconstructionist and guilt by association is a fallacy as old as time. I find it very interesting that you completely ignore that Secular Humanist's have been attempting to change our society into their own image for decades. The ultimate end of which can only be totalitarian. It's probably just an oversight that you don't mention it and this has nothing to do with how well the secular humanist manifesto and goals line up with your own.

Syvlia, if making successful predictions is all that you need to be science, then creation theory is science too. Predictions such as plate techtonics, magnetic field strength of other planets and that the universe had a beginning are all predictions of creation science.

I have more comments here http://alangrey.blogspot.com/2005/10/motivations-of-defenders-of-science.html

My Dogma ate my homework.

Yes the sneekster has some views and mighty fine views they are too.

I have no objection to creationism - I just dont believe it as described; it is an article of faith. The concept of evolution is a testable hypothesis.

You cant test ID as it is a belief in the hand of god in all manner of creation - ; its proponents dont need to seek answers or the truth as ID is predicated on the assumption god made everything - the search for truth and meaning stops right there. People can believe it but they can not prove it - they can even teach it but not as a science becasue it aint.

And as for shots - I only took shots at CR as Christian Reconstructionism is a scary idea - a dangerous idea; people need to know who the fellow travellers of the ID movement are before they open their minds and doors to this kind of stuff.

"What a diatribe of non scientific obfuscation. Leave science to the Scientists who are prepared to prove their theories. You have the bible to push your 'intelligent design' creationist theory. Be satisfied that it has not been banned as unscientific, non proven propaganda.

Posted by maracas, Friday, 21 October 2005 11:16:46 AM"

pfft Fundamentalist Darwinians!

I'm always amused at the irrational nonsense that those who champion 'rational science' spout when their religion comes under attack.
Sure there are one or two scientists who are capable of holding an adult conversation on the topic but they are few and far between. But lets not buy into the whole 'science Vs religion' distraction, this is a conflict of ideaolgies and nothing else.