What is Creationism Anyway?
Victor Reppert is an advocate of the Intelligent Design movement. But he is frustrated that the courts have found that teaching it as science in public education is unconstitutional. My question for Victor is: Why can't you be satisfied teaching your religious beliefs in Sunday school? As I noted in my previous post, you should be happy that you are free to do that. Why do you think you need to impose it on the rest of us?
But the IDists insist that what they are pushing is indeed science. They took the creationism out of it, so where's the beef?
OK, so the court says "You can't teach out and out creationism, but you can do this," so someone alters a creationist text in order to do just this, and then Kitzmiller says that it's wrong to do "just this".So what is Creationism?
This I don't understand. " - Reppert
It is the belief that God created the universe and the things in it. If you believe that God is the creator, then you are a creationist. You might be a young-earth creationist (YEC), or you might be an intelligent design adherent (and the purveyors of ID in public schools do believe that God is the creator, whether they admit it or not), or you might be a Catholic who maintains that God made evolution take its course. It doesn't matter. All of these things are creationism.
It's time to take Victor to school again. He wonders why it isn't constitutional to teach Intelligent Design as science in the public schools. The short answer: because it isn't science. It's religion masquerading as science. They didn't remove the creationism, they only removed explicit mention of God as the creator, and they leave it up to the student to figure out who that creator might be. Let's see - could it be aliens? Gee, who could it possibly be? But I have already explained that the IDists are liars, and Victor has certainly heard all this before. He simply chooses to ignore the facts.
Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that you can't teach "creation science" as science, because it's religion, not science. Kitzmiller v. Dover is absolutely consistent with that, because ID is just another form of creationism. Simply removing explicit mentions of God as the creator doesn't change the fact that it's still creationism and still religion. And that's the whole idea. That's the one and only reason these people want it to be taught at all. They are religious people who want to push their religious beliefs in the public schools. If ID was just another genuine scientific theory with no religious content or implication, they wouldn't give a rat's ass about it, because what they care about is religion, not science.
While we're at it, I would like to point out to any Catholics out there that you can tell yourself that your religion is compatible with science, and you can pat yourself on the back for not being one of those "fundies" who believe in the literal truth of Genesis, but you are fooling yourselves. Your brand of evolution is still not science. The scientific theory of evolution holds that natural selection is a primary mechanism of evolution. Your version of evolution isn't natural, it's supernatural. And it isn't random, it's driven by a purpose. And that means it isn't consistent with the scientific theory. It ain't science - it's creationism. So don't pat yourself on the back too hard. According to Bob Prokop, "The Gospels are literally true." The only difference between you and the YECs is that you are more choosy about which parts of the bible you accept as literal truth. But the gospels are also loaded with pre-scientific hokum. How can you believe that and still laugh at the YECs because they believe other parts of the bible are literally true? More importantly, how can you believe that and still claim that your beliefs are compatible with science? You are just as "fundie" as they are.
Back to the question at hand - why aren't they happy teaching religion in religious schools? They are free to believe it. They are free to teach it. But they insist on trying to subvert the legitimate education of everyone's children, not just their own. To me, that's child abuse.