While the definition of science demands it be explained by “natural law”, the origin of natural law itself has no naturalistic answer. Thus we have an unexplainable reality, natural law, being used as the gate keeper to exclude all other unexplainable phenomena (particlly God).

Ruse and company need to understand that all of science ultimately rests on phenomena that have no naturalistic explanation. This is true of the fine tuning of the cosmological constants, the solar system, our life supporting terrestrial earth, the orign of life itself, the origin of consciousness, our finely tuned interdependent eco systems, and a multitude of other factors, includng mind, music and language.

In short, a cosmic designer is not only a philosophical option and necessity within science, but the foundational principle underlying all of science. Where there is no purely naturalistic explanation within our “dependent dying” universe, it is reasonable and rational to discuss he non-natural scientific options, considering science itself ultimately necessitates such realities, including the origin of the universe itself.

“how can people act moral without the fear of punishment from a supernatural being”
How conceited and self-absorbed can you get?

I am intrigued by not only the debate between nature as its own cause vs nature deliberately caused, but I am happy to read one who is obviously not favorable to Conservative Protestant Christians admit that many, many evolutionists have made a religion out of Darwinism. Still, Dr. Ruse seems to be saying that if liberals or unitarians, etc., were to be the perceived advocates, then it might not be so bad, because he doesn’t dislike them as much. Frankness is appreciated, in spite of this bias.

I’ve been fascinated, too, by the utter dogma by which Dawkins can admit that there is an overwhelming appearance of design in the structure, function, and movement of our universe, and then, just as dogmatically, declare these appearances to be “illusions”.

Here’s what I find interesting in the evolutionist critique of intelligent design: the simple fact that the word “design” unavoidably implies a designer is enough to deny, and or belittle, any observable evidence of design!

Interesting.

Paul Richard Strange, Sr.
119 Marvin Gardens
Waxahachie Texas 75165

The problem with saying that ID should not be taught in the classroom is a bit like saying we can’t examine the premises evolution uses, period. (Evolution requires physical determinism for example) This rather arbitrary prohibition declares ‘truth’. I agree with Michael Ruse that science has a bit of a religious component to it.

The issue, I believe, is that increasingly science is asking metaphysical questions. For example, reading literature on Magnetic Resonance Imaging, one increasingly sees references to the mind as an entity separate from the brain. The question is not should religion be asking scientific questions (we’ve seen what happens when it doesn’t), but rather should science be asking metaphysical ones?

If we are willing impose this restriction on science, than it is science that must pull back not religion. Otherwise it is perfectly acceptable to allow proponents of ID to engage in the evolution debate.

Religion has made this war-hungry nation great, and it keeps on feeding this hunger even today. Luckely Western-Europe has learned the real deal about religion and strifes for a free-thinking, critical society. Evolution is a fact, religion is a product of mass psychology: God did not creat Man, Man created God.

Ps: For those people who do need the pressence of a creator: What makes you certain that your religion is right & other religions wrong?

“Dr Ruse’s comments on US law and constitution are the ones that really throw me. He says it is illegal to teach ID in a biology class. Since when?”

Well your answer to that is when US courts decided that last year in december in the Dover Trial, hello! “Dover Trial: Intelligent Design Violates Establishment Clause”

Here you go:

“Science, rationality, and the Constitution prevailed in Dover, where the school board tried to undermine the science underlying evolution by promoting a religious alternative, intelligent design. Judge John Jones III decided that the board’s policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by endorsing a religious belief.”

“In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science,” Jones wrote. “We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”

The school board’s policy required teachers to inform biology students of “gaps” in Darwin’s theory of evolution while directing their attention to a book on intelligent design in the school library. Judge Jones was scathing in his criticism of the board members, who have since been voted off the school board.

“The breathtaking inanity of the board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial,” Jones said in a 139-page decision. “The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.”

Judge Jones (appointed by the current President Bush) recognized that religious extremists will brand him an activist judge. He answered those critics in advance: “this is manifestly not an activist Court.” Defending the Constitution is part of a judge’s job description. Judge Jones should be commended for doing his job fearlessly.

More information (including a link to the opinion) is available at the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s website.

That’s the problem I have with the teaching of evolution: teachers (like my high school biology teacher) who support evolution because “the Bible is 2000 years old and so in all probability inaccurate.” It didn’t dawn on me at the time, but his training was in biology, not history or archaeology or textual criticism/analysis.

This quote is almost heartbreaking: “For the First World, America is the only country that has not taken the Enlightenment seriously.” Please tell me it isn’t true!