A liberal friend sent me “an update from a liberal rag on Intelligent Design,” from a Web site called The Progress Report, by the American Progress Action Fund, of which I had not heard before. Excerpt:
Students should be and are taught about theories like intelligent design -- they learn of various belief systems in philosophy and humanities classes, and of the levels of religious belief in our society in sociology classes.
(Indeed, consider the recent struggle over evolution in Dover, PA: the school board candidates who opposed the teaching of ID in science classes also strongly supported its inclusion in humanities curricula.
"Paradoxically," the New York Times observed, "that may mean that if [those candidates] win, intelligent design would be examined more thoroughly, and critically, than under current policy,” which was crafted by ID proponents.)
But, contrary to [Fox News commentator Bill] O'Reilly's claim, intelligent design and similar theories should not be taught by scientists, and not in science classes.
(Paragraphing and links edited; emphasis added.) That makes a great deal of sense.
As regular readers will know, my own faith is grounded mainly on the majesty of the universe. The atheists have yet to come up with a persuasive explanation why we shouldn't credit a Creator.
But as a subheading in the article says, science should be taught in science classes. And right now, Intelligent Design simply isn't science.