Is the writers faith so weak that teaching evolution in the schools is going to shake it then the fault lies with him and not society.

Evolution is the leading scientific theory of the origin and development of life. That is why it is taught. If it is as weak as the ID folks say and if ID is as strong then scientists the ID folks should be able to, by the scientific method, become the dominant theory. For some reason they don't want to take this route, instead they rely on brute political power to force their view.

ID is being widely taught where it should be: in church. Would the writer approve of competing theories of the origin of life being forced there?

I doubt it.

Sorry about the incoherent middle paragraph. It should read.

Evolution is the leading scientific theory of the origin and development of life. That is why it is taught. If it is as weak as the ID folks say and if ID is as strong then the ID folks should be able to, by the scientific method, become the dominant theory. For some reason they don't want to take this route, instead they rely on brute political power to force their view.

Mr. Falcone has a pretty odd dictionary. Here's what mine says about science:

1) a-The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

b -Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c -Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2) Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

3) An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

4) Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

"Why is it that people who prefer a Christian viewpoint have to give up so much of their basic faith?"

Who says that you have to give it up? Just because science tells a different story of the world's history than a literal reading of the bible, that's no reason to think that your faith must be dropped.

Believe what you want, but you can forget about forcing science to change its conclusions just to make you feel happier about your faith. That's not its function.

"Why do these folks, generally in the minority, try to force their views on those whose views differ and are generally in the majority?"

It's called politcal correctness Mr. Falcone, we don't want to possibly offend someone in a minority. The huge problem is that ID just might possibly assume God exists, and lord forbid the word God be mentioned in public, especially in a school. Ooopps, better not use the term "lord forbid" either.

Political correctness has taken such a hold on this country to the extent that American white males, Christians, and fat people are the only politically correct targets left.

I was in WV earlier this week with a client. He told me his kids school system wants to ban the National Anthem being sung in the schools because it might offend a student who is not American.

Based on their performance recently...not to mention past history of persecution of scientists including Gallileo and on "Crusades" to kill non-christians, yes, I would say their viewpoint deserves a bad rap

"It's called politcal correctness Mr. Falcone, we don't want to possibly offend someone in a minority. The huge problem is that ID just might possibly assume God exists, and lord forbid the word God be mentioned in public, especially in a school. Ooopps, better not use the term "lord forbid" either."

Oh for the love of puppies! Give your "majority being persecuted" act a rest. No one has ever tried to keep religious people from talking about God in public here in America. No one -- except possibly a fringe communist wacko or two, but who bothers with them?

And science as a discipline is not excluding God for political reasons. There are solid, logical reasons for keeping the supernatural out of the study of the natural world. I suggest you read some books on the subject to find out if you are actually curious.

" I was in WV earlier this week with a client. He told me his kids school system wants to ban the National Anthem being sung in the schools because it might offend a student who is not American. ".......
Christians who study the scriptures should not expect things to get better as time progresses (dan i'm not saying that is what you mean), as end times draw closer the 'system' will become more broken. it is such a shame that for many people they can never have faith, they just cannot get beyond their five sense. all they will ever experience is the natural world, what a pity.i personallly don't care whether or not ID is taught in public school, my son has a personal relationship with God and i was not dependent on the school system for that. if ID is taught that is cream on the cake. we as parents need to assume the prime responsibility of rearing our children with an honest balance of what the 'world' teaches and what 'God' teaches, they ultimately will make their own choices.

Buz, the ending statements are my reasons for not wanting religion (ANY) taught in public school. I appreciate the way it was stated and agree with those words!

Shalom

Eric, I'm glad you love puppies, I do too. If you don't think anyone is trying to prevent God from being mentioned in public, try joining the ACLU and see how many lawsuits they file each year against display of the Ten Commandments, manger scenes, dropping "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. etc. I would agree with you that the ACLU is fringe, communist, and wacko, but there are more than two of them.

Would you please care to give me some solid, logical reasons for not mentioning God (or the "supernatural" in your PC lingo) as a possibility as to why the natural world exists? I'm not advocating proselytizing students in the public schools to be Christians, just presenting different points of views.

Buz, the National Anthem does not even mention God until the fourth verse. I would venture to say a good majority of Americans don't even know the first verse, much less 2-4. My four year old knows the first verse by heart.

This is just an example of political correctness run amok. We can't even mention the national anthem in school to avoid offending the child of an illegal. Go figure.

"If you don't think anyone is trying to prevent God from being mentioned in public, try joining the ACLU and see how many lawsuits they file each year against display of the Ten Commandments, manger scenes, dropping "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. etc. "

Please provide some documentation to support your contention that the ACLU has tried even once to keep private speech about religion suppressed. They have never asked any court to prevent a student from saying prayers privately in school, nor have they ever urged that any church be prevented from displaying any religious speech they wanted.

You are conflating government issues with private ones. All the ACLU has worked for is the protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority, in cases that the Constitution says they should be protected. If you have any documentation that they have done otherwise, please give it to me.

"Would you please care to give me some solid, logical reasons for not mentioning God (or the "supernatural" in your PC lingo) as a possibility as to why the natural world exists?"

First off, why do you think it's "PC" to say "supernatural" rather than "God"? I use the term because the world of religion doesn't revolve strictly around your religion. If I say "God," especially in America, nearly everyone would assume I mean the Jewish god YHWH. Yours isn't the only game involved here. Besides, my term also covers the rest of the Christian pantheon of Satan, angels, demons and various other invisible critters that Christias have come up with over the centuries. Deal with it.

The solid logical reason that science doesn't deal in the supernatural is Occam's Razor. If all things are equal, the simplest explanation is best. The postulate that an undetectable realm with an uncreated superbeing that can create and control a universe is far and away more complex than a universe that exists without cause. Until you (or the Discovery Institute) can come up with incontrovertable evidence that forces the conclusion that such a realm exists, science has no logical reason to bother with the concept.

Oddly ID is more of a dis-service to the people that it is designed to serve, the Christian community. By looking for a scientific proof of Gods existance you take faith out of the equation and faith is what our religion is based on. And do parents really want a view of religion taught at schools that they may not agree with. Let's leave this can of worms alone.

" Until you (or the Discovery Institute) can come up with incontrovertable evidence that forces the conclusion that such a realm exists, science has no logical reason to bother with the concept. "
dan, this person making that comment must certainly put an extrordinary amount of trust in your abilities and i wonder before 1990 (discovery institute formed) who was the final authority to all the answers in the universe ?
marshall, i think dem worms already been put on da hooks and a fishin' party is under way !

Ok, here goes. Religion basically makes it seem ok to die. It is not! When you die, there is a chance that your counsciousness ceases to exist. Religion is trying to stop science from reaching its full potential, which includes Immortality.

Instead of wasting all this time IMAGINING there is a GOD and praying/going to church/ or whatever mental hang-up you go through to make yourself feel better, why not actually contribute to curing or fixing the thing that killed your loved ones?

Example: Mom dies of liver cancer. The church tries to squash the possible cure (stem cells) which could probably be developed in a very few years. But a group of delusional people insist they are all-knowing about a group of cells in a petrie dish, therefore thwarting the advancement of science and contributing to the killing of millions of people. This is why people hate Christians. So everytime you wonder why, now you know.

When sceince can (and it will) do everything you imagine your God can do, why would you need that God anymore? Religion cannot survive; it can only hamper the scientific process in hopes to buy a little more time.

Regards

Leon