Those ardently calling for ID to be thrown out of schools should consider what the implications are for them if they are wrong about God.

ID might not be scientifically testable, nor even scientifically accurate, nor even theologically sound, but it should at least be allowed to be heard in the classroom of ideas if it is ever to be properly refuted. Suppressing its teaching serves to foster ignorance. Do those voices of opposition want their children's generation to remain ignorant of theories like ID and unable to know how to respond? Because that is exactly what will happen if those ardent voices of opposition are allowed to have their way.

"The issue of evolution is but one dimension of a broader Christian agenda concerned as much with theocracy as democracy".

Can people stop using the broad term "Christian" to denote those who claim to follow Christ buy believe in the primacy of the bible and its absolute truth? I know it's a bit of pedantry, but the Catholic church is fine with evolution, and Catholics truly dislike being lumped together with a vocal evangelical minority. It is true that these newer churches have confidence in abundance, yet lack the humility needed to stop themselves from being presumptious over their own knowledge.

Those Christians who set down most of the guidelines for what constitutes science find ID and Creationism to be bad science, and ever worse theology.

"The very large, wealthy evangelical "American" style Churches with their wealth and health 'gospel?'are not Christian. Instead they are man's religion."

Without wanting to digress too far from the topic of this thread, I think you need to consider that those who regularly attend churches like hillsong and consider themselves to be Christian believe their church to be a Christian church. Hillsong, CCC and others like them base their teachings on the protestant Bible, affirming Jesus' atoning death for the forgiveness of sins and his resurrection, even if they have teachings that diverge from historical Christianity (like prosperity teaching). To call them some name other than "Christian" would be to overlook these facts and is hardly fair on those having a genuine faith who attend such congregations.

slasher, sush!! they are keeping that part (along with a few other similar initiatives) quiet for the time being. That will come later once control is a bit more firmly established. Right now the it's all about family values and the like, we're supposed to be scared of muslims not christain fundies.

For the time being the uncomfortable parts of the Old Testament are "fullfilled in the new" and the OT will only be referenced for the "Good" stuff".

Get with the program.

(Just in case it the humour is not obvious I'm being tongue in cheek)

R0bert

Alan, I found your article interesting and the fascinating part is that were youto substitute Qur'an for Bible and use the Arabic term for God (Allah) your text would read not so much like a Christian diatribe but a statement from a so called islamic fundamentalist grouping! Religious extremism in any form is damaging in the extreme and the selective use of scriptural texts as an advocacy tool can become bigotry. Your article clearly illustrates how extremist religious organisations can whip up emotion. As a Muslim I support the CCCs drive to keep creationism/ID on the agenda but as a world citizen and an advocate of the freedom of choice, I ask at what cost? If we support the CCC does that mean that we inevitably also support an organication that advocates the repression and oppression of women, homosexuals and probably, yes you guessed it....Muslims!! I do agree with Alan though and that it is time to begin monitoring the Christian Right and especially for those of the Jewish faith. As a Muslim it is interesting for me that those of the Jewish faith would align themselves with a grouping that so blatantly displayed where their allegiance lay when Jesus (PBUH) was nailed to the cross. Again, thanks for a fascinating article and I am definitely going to watch this space.

Yng
you allege that evolution is probably unfalsifiable. I absolutely agree that for ANY theory to be considered part and parcel of science it MUST be falsifiable. Unfortunately for you, BD, & coach the theory of evolution is falsifiable.
Read this & weep Yng:
"There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
1. a static fossil record;
2. true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs);
3. a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
4. observations of organisms being created.
Note That: This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified." From TalkOrigins.
Now you claim that ID or creationism is science Yng so provide me with just one point that's falsifiable. Just one or admit that ID & creationism is NOT science & does NOT belong in a science classroom.
By the way for all those interested in the FACTS and not just propagating their own views TalkOrigins examines EVERY single argument used against evolution & demolishes them.
Here endeth the lesson