inhibiting religion is not the primary or principal purpose of teaching evolutionary theory.

But the fact is that the primary or principal effect of teaching evolutionary theory is to inhibit religion. It certainly had that effect on me, and on many contributers to this website.

Instilling belief in God need not be the primary or principal purpose of teaching ID. But it would be the effect, that is what makes people fear it. That is why a certain level of anger is detected over it.

I believe in God, I know it isn't in fashion to just come out and say so. Immediately ones intellectual powers are brought into question.

Claims of former agnosticism are scoffed at, seriously doubted. BTW I was never a serious agnostic. But I had serious doubts about any God, but really wanted to believe.

What should really scare people is that if there is a God, He must be hiding himself on purpose. And I do not believe this God is 100% benevolent, I believe God is good, but God is evil to his enemies. Yep, that's the Biblical God. The one that holds me under his power.

In all seriousness.

Teach the kids the facts. If ID has a whit of credibility about it, one of those kids can find it. But of course, they can't start the search unless they understand evolution theory and why scientists say it works. The only thing all this wrangling about ID does is preserve ignorance and frustrate science.

But I was never in favor of teaching ID in schools, Ed. There's nothing to teach, and there won't be anything to teach until science says so. Besides, when science 'discovers' telic processes in the evolution of life they won't call it ID, and they won't be talking about gods/God.

The issue here is the "New Atheists" and their insistence that evolutionary biology answers god questions. It has been established that metaphysics - religious or anti-religious - can't be taught in compulsory public school science classrooms as if it were science. It is beginning to look like the corruption of science y'all have been doing the Chicken Little dance about has managed to survive the wedge. It may yet sink the evolution portion of secondary science education.

That would be a great shame, but it won't be ID's fault. I saw it coming back when I first realized that it was EAs leading the Darwin charge. I too would defend science if I really believed Creationists had a chance in hell of subverting it, but hell's as hot as it's ever been. Of the authoritarian tendencies on both sides, the EAs were always the bigger threat to science and liberty. I suspect that some on your side of the aisle are just now starting to see the same thing.

There could be "secular purpose" for teaching all sorts of things that also serve to promote or inhibit religious liberty.

and

Thus a case could be presented that the force feeding of evolutionary pablum to high school kids - which does *not* impart enough information to allow questions or criticisms - serves no other purpose than to instill blind acceptance of scientistic authoritarianism in direct opposition to religious faith in other people's children. Which is Dawkins' oft-asserted purpose in life.

If you can find a secular purpose for anything in science, coupled with evidence to support it — aye, there's the rub — it's in the books with no court order, no resolution from a school board, no odd law from a state legislature.

A better case could be made that we shouldn't waste kids' time with crank science, the better to let them get the information to understand evolution. There is no ban on kids' asking questions about evolution. The only correlation to kids not getting enough information is the correlation to those places that teachers are afraid to teach the facts due to the constant intimidation from ID advocates and other creationists.

Teach the kids the facts. If ID has a whit of credibility about it, one of those kids can find it. But of course, they can't start the search unless they understand evolution theory and why scientists say it works. The only thing all this wrangling about ID does is preserve ignorance and frustrate science.

The primary criticisms resurface every generation. Why do you suppose that is?

As far as I can tell, primarily their religious beliefs.

And there is about 15 decades of research to support the scientific validity of evolutionary theory, plus many scientists whose faith isn't threatened by it. Plus just because high school kids can't comprehend quantum mechanics isn't a reason to not teach them introductory physics.

Introductory physics has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics. The quantum world is entirely counterintuitive, and any decent physicist will tell you that without couching everything in mystical terms.

That quantum physics exists, that it describes mathematically a very, very strange reality, and that it's responsible for my generation's Damocles' Sword is learned by everyone regardless of whether they ever master f=ma. There have been sci-fi books, movies and TV shows all along that rely upon one odd fact or another of QM to flesh out the plot line.

Still, there are a good many biologists and other scientists out there who aren't entirely convinced by your 15 decades' worth of research. The primary criticisms resurface every generation. Why do you suppose that is?

Dawkins is working to help the creationists feel vindicated in that belief, now isn't he? What's more, given that Dawins et al. have decided to make all religious people "the problem," the non-creationist audience who might be sympathetic to the creationists' complaint can only grow.

Creationists get all the vindication they need from each other and Genesis. As to the rest, your posts have a high threatiness quotiant, Mike. A movement which consists of a minority of one of the smallest and most despised minorities in America won't worry rational theists very much.

The creationists who want to remove evolution from science curriculums already believe its purpose is to foster atheism, and Dawkins has the same freedom to promote his beliefs as the rest of us,

Yep, and Dawkins is working to help the creationists feel vindicated in that belief, now isn't he? What's more, given that Dawins et al. have decided to make all religious people "the problem," the non-creationist audience who might be sympathetic to the creationists' complaint can only grow.

Actually there is little documentation for this. A few school boards in a nation of 300 million people. Since anti-IDers have adopted the tactic of conflating creationists with IDers they have undercut the case for this even more. Very few IDers advocate removing evolution from curriculums.

and Dawkins has the same freedom to promote his beliefs as the rest of us, so other than the efforts of people such as Ken Miller to educate people that evolution is not incompatible with christianity,

Neither is ID incompatible with science.:grin:

The teacher example I gave you would receive national attention and might just be the catalyst to implement such a policy.

The creationists who want to remove evolution from science curriculums already believe its purpose is to foster atheism, and Dawkins has the same freedom to promote his beliefs as the rest of us, so other than the efforts of people such as Ken Miller to educate people that evolution is not incompatible with christianity, I'm not sure what else you think should be done.

Joy,

Thus a case could be presented that the force feeding of evolutionary pablum to high school kids - which does *not* impart enough information to allow questions or criticisms - serves no other purpose than to instill blind acceptance of scientistic authoritarianism in direct opposition to religious faith in other people's children. Which is Dawkins' oft-asserted purpose in life.

But Dawkins doesn't sit on an American school board, and never will. And I doubt any creationist will ever find even one school board member who will state that his primary purpose in supporting the teaching of evolution is to promote atheism. And there is about 15 decades of research to support the scientific validity of evolutionary theory, plus many scientists whose faith isn't threatened by it. Plus just because high school kids can't comprehend quantum mechanics isn't a reason to not teach them introductory physics.

Teaching evolutionary theory has a secular purpose, its primary or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and it doesn't foster an excessive gov't entanglement with religion.

There could be "secular purpose" for teaching all sorts of things that also serve to promote or inhibit religious liberty. In Britain there is no lemon test because the state directly promotes and subsidizes religion in the schools. Thus Dawkins can promote evolutionary biology *as* anti-religion, which is his religion (and for purposes of Constitutional protections, atheism is so classified by the USSC).

On one hand we have critics whining that high school kids and all other humans who are not evolutionary biologists are simply too ignorant/dumb to understand the incredible technical complexity of evolutionary biology, thus are not qualified to criticize it. On the other hand we have critics insisting that high school kids and all other humans be forced to accept evolutionary biology (as dumbed-down pablum) on faith as big-T 'Truth'. Which, they tell us in the very next breath, means religions are to be rejected with prejudice.

Thus a case could be presented that the force feeding of evolutionary pablum to high school kids - which does *not* impart enough information to allow questions or criticisms - serves no other purpose than to instill blind acceptance of scientistic authoritarianism in direct opposition to religious faith in other people's children. Which is Dawkins' oft-asserted purpose in life.

It looks like Dawkins understands better than you do that his approach won't fly in the US for Constitutional reasons. Which *is* the purpose of the lemon test:

The Lemon test has not escaped criticism. Many scholars (including separationists Leonard Levy and Donald Laycock) have argued that the test is unduly subjective and internally consistent, and it's usefulness has been questioned by a majority of the sitting Justices…

Why in the world would you pretend otherwise?