While we certainly agree in principle, David, I would like you to please consider the following.

There are certainly many non-religious, but spiritual individuals, who experience something divine within the very fabric of the universe. It is natural that these individuals wish to systematically expose their children to this world-view. Children tend to thrive under such instruction. Inevitably they become more complete individuals who then bring more positive and constructive energy back into the society which nurtured them. The theory of Intelligent Design (ID) appears to such individuals to be the perfect non-religious context with which to achieve these commendable goals.

Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth in this particular situation.

While God could certainly use a good deal more exposure within all of society, it is impossible for any society to allow God to just “be himself” without some religious group demanding that “their version” of God be accepted as the only “legitimate version” of God. It is axiomatic that the harder any “God-based” agenda is being pushed within a society, the more certain it is that some hard-line fundamentalist religious groups are the ones behind the scenes pushing it.

The truth is undeniable: Religious fundamentalism = religious intolerance = an exponential increase in social/political instability the more “globally integrated” is the world. Every week we witness yet another illustration of the powerful destructive energy that is released when extremist Islamic fundamentalism collides with secular Western customs. It is as inevitable as it is tragic.

This is why our Constitution specifically mandates the absolute and complete separation of “Church and State”. Given the structure of human nature, the mixture of these two social forces will always be disastrous. In fact, history proves this alliance to be the most destructive WMD that mankind has ever unleashed. For this reason alone, the law is clear: The separation between church and state must be absolute and unequivocal.

The current driving force behind the current movement advocating the introduction of the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) is well established. This is a Christian fundamentalist agenda to sneak “their concept of God” into the classroom through the “back door”. Think about it for a moment. Is there anyone who accepts the theory of ID who does not also believe in God or some form of Divine Creative Force? Of course there isn’t. This is exactly why they coined the phrase in the first place.

The logic is simple. ID by definition does not speculate on what caused/created this intrinsic intelligent design in the first place. But it is the very absence of some basic cause that forces us to fill in the blanks for ourselves. Since the only possible logical solution to the question left purposefully unanswered by ID is a divine creative force: Voila! They have now successfully invented a theory (or coined a phrase) which allows them to assert their belief that God exists – without having to use the actual word “God”. Furthermore, by referencing observable natural phenomena upon which to support their argument, they can attempt to lay claim to scientific credibility – without ever having to prove a basic premise or hypothesis in the first place.

If this seems like a deceptively manipulative and convoluted bit of logic to you, it should. The current theory/phrase called Intelligent Design was invented for the specific purpose of serving as a smokescreen with which to secretly advance a fundamentalist Christian-based agenda in the schools. It is not at all an affirmation of the existence of God, as they would have us believe. This is a blatant religion-based political strategy to use the concept of God with which to secure an illegal political advantage. Sound familiar?

Does any of this mean that the basic concept that there is some immanent creative force within the very “stuff of the universe” is incorrect or invalid? No. In fact, most people appear to instinctively resonate with it. I know that I do. What it does mean is that we are once again forced to separate the intuitive appeal of a formal theory/concept from the specific underlying purposes for which this concept is being used.

We must stay focused on the real issues at hand. The belief in God or the debate over the origins of life has absolutely nothing to do with this court ruling. This ruling states one thing, and one thing only: The separation of church and state must be absolute and beyond doubt. It is the law of the land. Our continued existence as a society depends upon it.

It is not only a just ruling. It is the only ruling possible under our laws.

Thank God!

Merry Christmas Eve, David.

Like you I have enjoyed following this thread to date. People have shown considerably more dignity than any of us might have expected. I have found your statements, in particular, to be warm, intelligent and considerate. This is more than any of us has the right to expect on an Internet forum - particularly at the edge of religious discussion.

Perhaps the reason for this is that you created this thread as a discussion about Intelligent Design; not religion. My own experiences suggest that teleogical discussions which center around the generic concept of Intelligent Design usually bring out the positive in people's religous and spiritual values. Perhaps this concept alludes to that mysterious something which we innately sense is at the center of all this. At least, that is how it appears to me.


When I read your excerpt about my probably thinking of you as a "Bible bashing fundamentalist," David, it made me chuckle.

Ironically, by nature, I hesitate to put a name to anyone. Once something is named people tend to think instead of feel. Eventually they come to believe that the truth lies in some concept that they will understand simply by listening and reasoning. Sadly, absolutely nothing could be further from the truth.

In the end we agree perfectly. We all know what needs to be done. We also know the basic ground-rules. It resolves itself to the committment to living it each and every day.

Merry Christmas to you and yours, my friend.

Glenn

Good morning, sabbathcorn.

Your forum name is rather interesting.

At first I simply assumed that it was an allusion to the famous (or infamous) incidents regarding the indictment of Jesus by the Pharisees as told in Mark.

Then I realized that it could also be an allusion to the Black Sabbath song "Cornucopia".

Both are powerful allusions, although the first suggests a far more complex and compelling metaphor.

Hello Julied. How kind of you to comment.
I've used that name online for some time now. I originally intended it as a comment on literal interpretation -- thinking of the self-righteous Pharisees and the anachronistic images of cornfields the KJV engenders in modern readers.

I've been pleased to hear other connections -- Black Sabbath, Korn, Corn Crop and the Seven Donkeys, the Pharoh's dreams, greed in Amos... each a gem of association.

Your forum name pushes some diverse mental buttons as well. JulieD is obvious, but it could be Julied, JuliEd, JuLied ... evoking Shakespeare, Gender Roles, Marriage ... how do you pronounce it?
SC

Hello again, sabbathcorn. It's a pleasure to meet you.

After reading your post I suspected that the motives for your choice fell along these lines. There is a strong "independence and creative rebeliousness" evident in the metaphor that you used in your choice of names. Aside from his spritual accomplishments, to me this was Jesus of Nazareth's most defining quality.

My own choice is motivated by the fact that julied is my wife. A talented physician, she has earned both my love and my respect. Somewhat like a child who shares a special secret, using her name adds a little "something more" to the conversations. It is also a way (in my own mind) that we have of sharing a laugh as we watch the dawning realization. (Given that I was raised by a successful single mother, my current marriage would come as no surprise.)

Although I must confess to being a bit perplexed at how you arrived at the Shakespeare connection, I am certainly quite a fan.

A very amusing thought occurred to me just now. Although not my favorite genre, my most delightful surprise of a movie, and still one of my very favorites, is "Shakespeare in Love."

On this note I bid you a pleasant evening, and a very Merry Christmas.

the other julied