politburo diktat 2.0

Who would agree with this statement? “Intelligent Design is thinly designed Creationism, a sham, whose advocates should give up on trying to make a modern secular state reflect their beliefs.”

How about well-known and/or thoughtful Creationists like Rush Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, and (the blogosphere’s own resident Creationist commentator) Michael the Thumper? Read on ..

Rush Limbaugh:

I think that the [ID proponents] — and I know why they’re doing it, but I still think that it’s a little bit disingenuous. Let’s make no mistake. The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals because it ostensibly does not involve religious overtones …

Cal Thomas:

The decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to bar the teaching of “intelligent design” in the Dover, Penn., public school district on grounds it is a thinly veiled effort to introduce a religious view of the world’s origins is welcome for at least two reasons.

First, it exposes the sham attempt to take through the back door what proponents have no chance of getting through the front door. Judge Jones rebuked advocates of “intelligent design,” saying they repeatedly lied about their true intentions. He noted many of them had said publicly that their intent was to introduce into the schools a biblical account of creation. Judge Jones properly wondered how people who claim to have such strong religious convictions could lie, thus violating prohibitions in the book they proclaim as their source of truth and standard for living.
…
This leads to the second reason for welcoming Judge Jones’ ruling. It should awaken religious conservatives to the futility of trying to make a secular state reflect their beliefs. Too many people have wasted too much time and money since the 1960s, when prayer and Bible reading were outlawed in public schools, trying to get these and a lot of other things restored. The modern secular state should not be expected to teach Genesis 1, or any other book of the Bible, or any other religious text.

Michael the Thumper:

Every time a “highly motivated” Creationist/ID activist conceals or denies his/her motive publicly, it causes the public to lose trust in Creationists . . .

The result … is that Christianity is tainted with the stench of fraud. And in the process, Creationism becomes linked to, and intellectually dependant on, junk science, placing many souls at risk. As I have previously opined here, I consider this the proper work of Satan.

What the hell are they trying to accomplish? Will souls be saved for Jesus because some vacuous, nominally agnostic, watered-down creedless version of the creation story is taught in public schools? Not likely.

Increasingly, I am coming to the conclusion that the motive is personal. I suspect we’re dealing with people whose faith is so fragile that they cannot deal honestly with science, and they cannot abide the many mysteries and paradoxes of their religion. Thus, driven by fear, they seek the “official” endorsement of some lame version of creationism being taught in public schools. Otherwise, they really don’t know what to tell their kids.

Here’s a tip for any Christians who may visit this site: If you are emotionally commited to the idea that your local school board must ratify the possibility that Genesis might be true, you are in deep spiritual trouble.

It looks like some Creationists now see with total clarity, that trying to push ID in the public schools is a losing proposition. It simply is religion and it is not going to fly in a secular state. Those who believe in Creationism would do better to pursue that belief in their own homes and churches. Contrast the intelligent facing of reality by Limbaugh, Cal Thomas, and Michael the Thumper with the ID apologists in Ace’s ID comment thread. Will someone give them a clue?