John Gee's book review and thoughts:

[_Trevor]

Happily... it's those damn Neo-gnostic liberation theology people, with their insidious 'stick it to the man though ID' tactics.

But seriously, I am using the term theology loosely, here... as in, 'the God of the gaps becomes our explanation so that we can talk about God in school in some way.' I do not believe that the more credible thinkers of the ID camp would say that this is their agenda. My father, who is a PhD trained physicist, is pro-ID in the classroom, because he thinks that the possibility needs to be explored and should be talked about.

I think it is fine to talk about theories in the abstract. And I have no problem with the idea of introducing in a classroom environment the fact that ID is one area that is explored. But, knowing how the abstract ideals of public education tends to get translated rather poorly in the actual classroom, what I envision happening is that religionists will simply teach that there simply *is* an intelligent designer who created the universe, whose story can be found, say, in the Bible.

I don't think that supporting people in such an endeavor is a good use of public money (not that we see too much prudent use of that anyway).

[_Daniel Peterson]

My personal hunch is that "teaching the controversy" between ID and naturalistic models of evolution as random, undirected chance would help to revitalize interest in science in the United States, which is sorely lagging. When science is handed down simply as dogma, many find it boring. And when it's handed down as entailing naturalism, many others find it repulsive. If it were taught as problems to be solved, issues to be debated -- including but not limited to the most provocative ID arguments -- I think it would attract a great deal more interest.

I know that I, at least, were I a science teacher, would find such teaching enormously fun. I can imagine all sorts of ways that I would do things in the classroom to engage the students.

[_Yoda]

The simple fact of the matter is that when it comes to the freedom of Mormons and Muslims to worship, there's a lot of hate on this board -- even to the point of advocating the use of government power.

Would you please specify what you are referring to in regards to posts on this board?

Yes, there are ex-Mormons here who are disillusioned by their prior faith.

But where have people on this board come out and said that others don't have a right to worship as they choose?

[_guy sajer]

I understand that BYU has a mission, though I disagree with it, and I believe BYU actively stifles intellectual freedom,

The thing that is odd about this is that I have you on record in the prior iteration of this board advocating the use of government power to suppress the free expression of Mormon and Islam religious thought. Whereas you complain about free expression at BYU, you don't have a problem with suppressing the faith of your family. Why is that?

rcrocket

in my opinion, comments by one poster about another poster's family is inappropriate and in bad form.

You read a lot into my post. "Faith of your family" merely means Mormonism. "Faith of your fathers" "faith of your ancestors," etc. It is just an expression. I have no clue about anything about this familiy but he constantly volunteers information about it. I don't get personal beyond the four corners of a previous post.

My point with the good Dr. Sajer, and I am not willing to let it lie, is that in prior posts -- long ago -- he advocated the use of government power to squelch Mormonism. He didn't limit it by "when infringing upon civil rights." He's never claimed that Mormonism infringes upon civil rights.

He advocated the use of government power to put down unpopular and silly religious practices. I raise this only because he constantly harps on the suppression of freedoms at BYU. [We've had lots of discussions on this -- accreditation; tenure issues and the like.]

The simple fact is that he's all for freedom of expression if it comes to dissent within the Church or at BYU, but is not for unfettered freedom of worship when it comes to an unpopular religion.

rcrocket

Again, you misrepresent me.

So much for giving you the benefit of the doubt. Wishful thinking, I guess.

I never, ever have advocated the use of government to put down unpopular and silly religious practices. If I did, of if it can be shown that I ever advocated it, I retract it. The ONLY contexts in which I feel comfortable advocating government limitations on religious practices are:

1. Religous practices that clearly break the law (I am willing to debate specifics, as there are likely exceptions)
2. Religious practices that violate others' civil rights/liberties. This also is a broad statement in which we could debate specifics.
3. Religous practices that put at direct risk others' health, particularly that of children (for example, I would lean toward requiring Christian Scientist parents to get modern medical care for their children).

I am willing to listen to other arguments, but this is where I currently stand.

Is THAT a clear enough clarification for you?

[_Yoda]

Direct the insult to the post, not the poster.

Oh, yes, you're such a stellar example of this.

Is this an example of how you choose to "insult the post, not the poster"?

This was your comment to Shades:

I think that you epitomize the intellectual capacity and vulgarity of most of the denizens of this Board. Or, maybe I'm wrong and judgmental. Take your pick.

[_Trevor]

Yes, in the best of all worlds, I can really see this happening. But, you are a PhD trained scholar, whose grasp of nuances exceeds the average highschool teacher by a longshot. One of my dear friends, who is far more liberal than I am, sees this exactly as you see it. Perhaps I am revealing an elitist streak I did not know I had, but I simply do not trust that permission to teach ID in the classroom will not be abused. When it is, you will essentially get, in not just a couple of instances, religion masked in the language of science and left uninterrogated to boot. In other words, a scientistic religion preached in school.

I think what makes people like me uneasy is that support for ID comes, in not a few cases, packaged with a lot of other ideas we don't like (i.e. people quite often support this and other certain things together) . For example, when people who favor a top-down model for the determination and enforcement of their creeds also favor the teaching of ID, it is not unimaginable that they may combine the two to arrive at the unquestionable truth of ID as explicitly taught in the Bible but only implicitly promoted through ID. While that may work well for their agenda, and I am not saying all ID supporters share one agenda, it does not serve the students well in helping them learn to think for themselves.

[_Some Schmo]

Up until now, by contrast, in terms of Islamic subjects, I've chosen to invest my time -- hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours -- in creating a complex, four-part, multilingual publication series that will be foundational to the field of Islamic philosophy (as well as to the history of medieval science, the study of eastern Christianity, and several allied areas) for at least a century to come. It has cost me substantially in terms of my own research and writing, but I'm confident that my long-term contribution will be recognized as quite significant. In some circles, it already is. (And my own research is beginning to appear, anyway.) Will anybody be reading your articles fifty years from now?

LMAO... wow, so funny, yet so pathetic.

I had to stop and comment on this post because it's just so hilarious and typical of your average DCP post. Soon, Dannyboy will be pulling out a ruler to see whose dick is the biggest.

Pretty funny, little Danny. We certainly can't rely on you for intellectual discourse, now can we?

[_Yoda]

Up until now, by contrast, in terms of Islamic subjects, I've chosen to invest my time -- hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours -- in creating a complex, four-part, multilingual publication series that will be foundational to the field of Islamic philosophy (as well as to the history of medieval science, the study of eastern Christianity, and several allied areas) for at least a century to come. It has cost me substantially in terms of my own research and writing, but I'm confident that my long-term contribution will be recognized as quite significant. In some circles, it already is. (And my own research is beginning to appear, anyway.) Will anybody be reading your articles fifty years from now?

LMAO... wow, so funny, yet so pathetic.

I had to stop and comment on this post because it's just so hilarious and typical of your average DCP post. Soon, Dannyboy will be pulling out a ruler to see whose dick is the biggest.

Pretty funny, little Danny. We certainly can't rely on you for intellectual discourse, now can we?

Schmo...that was rude.

:(

[_rcrocket]

Direct the insult to the post, not the poster.

Oh, yes, you're such a stellar example of this.

Is this an example of how you choose to "insult the post, not the poster"?

This was your comment to Shades:

I think that you epitomize the intellectual capacity and vulgarity of most of the denizens of this Board. Or, maybe I'm wrong and judgmental. Take your pick.

I am so sorry. Maybe he isn't an example of the intellectual capacity and the pruience of the members of this Board.

[_rcrocket]

I never, ever have advocated the use of government to put down unpopular and silly religious practices. If I did, of if it can be shown that I ever advocated it, I retract it. The ONLY contexts in which I feel comfortable advocating government limitations on religious practices are:

1. Religous practices that clearly break the law (I am willing to debate specifics, as there are likely exceptions)
2. Religious practices that violate others' civil rights/liberties. This also is a broad statement in which we could debate specifics.
3. Religous practices that put at direct risk others' health, particularly that of children (for example, I would lean toward requiring Christian Scientist parents to get modern medical care for their children).

I am willing to listen to other arguments, but this is where I currently stand.

Is THAT a clear enough clarification for you?

Your prior posts were much more strident against freedom of worship but I accept your restatement.

rcrocket