Teaching Darwin splits Pennsylvania town

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/uspoliticsreligion

Teaching Darwin splits Pennsylvania town

13 minutes ago

DOVER, United States (AFP) - The pastoral fields and white frame houses appear at peace, but this Pennsylvania farm town is deeply at war over teaching Darwin or Christian creationism in its schools.
Since last year the school board voted to have high school biology teachers raise doubts about Darwin's 145-year-old theory and suggest an alternative Christian explanation for life. The city has since been deeply riven over the issue of separation of church and state.

In January the school board ordered teachers to tell students that Darwinism is not proved, and to teach as well an alternate theory, "intelligent design," which posits that a grand creator, God, is responsible for the development of living organisms. "Darwin's theory is a theory ... not a fact," the school board declared in their statement to the teachers. "Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view," said the report.

The command landed in the sprawling, red-brick Dover high school like a bomb. Biology teachers refused to read it, while around 15 students walked out in protest. "Reading it sends the message that it is a legitimate scientific idea or theory," said Jen Miller, a biology teacher who is also a church-goer and daughter of a minister. As news of the dispute spread, the small city of 25,000 found itself the focus of a national battle over Darwinism, creationism and the role of religion in schools.

Around 19 states are experiencing similar fights, according to the National Center for Science Education. The National Science Teachers Association reported that 31 percent of teachers say they feel pressured to include non-scientific alternatives to evolution in science lectures. Throughout Dover, a conservative, religious city in the Pennsylvania farm country, the talk is of nothing else, and the subject provokes angry arguments. In December 11 parents, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the school board, leading to stormy public meetings and resignations. The divisiveness now focuses on the election of a new school board from among its citizens. "Creation is why we are here," said retired teacher Virginia Doll, defending the introduction of religion into the biology classes. "We have a rather religious town, the God we
serve is important in everything we do," she said.

more......


AFP/File Photo

This type of bullshit is getting a little too close to New York for my tastes. I thought we'd be safe from these jackasses way up here, but the gospel bug has bitten a whole lot of people in the ass lately.
I can't go much farther north, I'm already at water's edge (Lake Ontario). I guess they're going to push me into Canada. Not like that's a bad thing. I love Canadians and their Country. It would be a breath of fresh air, literally and figuratively.

Lancaster where 90% of the Amish live. I wouldn't put much stock in the story since the reporter obviously has never been to Dover PA. The only way Dover would be a city of 25,000 people is if you moved 23,000 more people in.

Lancaster County (the seat of PA Amish community) is somewhat east.

Here's a map. The red star is Dover.
http://mq-mapgend.websys.aol.com:80/mqmapgend?MQMapGenRequest=FDR2dmwjDE%3byt29%26FDJnci4Jkqj%2cMMCJ%3aHOEvq%3bw72uut%3a%29zzgd6z%3a%26%40%24%3a%26%40b%3aqyb%3al4b%3aTD%15JFE%3aHOHQJ%3bw72uut%3a%29zzgd6z%3a%26%40%24%3a%26%40%24x9%40

She went to a HS near where I use to live

theorists may take that intellectual leap. But not all of them nor even most of them.

But a 'grand creator' or god is NOT implicit in the theory.

The philosophical basis for ID Theory is as valid as the philosophical basis behind Neo-Darwinist Theory.

Teach both, HONESTLY or neither and just stick to a survey of the empirical data when studying Evolution.

Jeebus!

notions into other people's theories.

the core of its belief. Not an unintelligent designer or random
acts of nature. Your ranting will not correct the fact that
the theory is mere theology and is absurd to even remotely belive
in such a topic unless one somewhat believes in a god, allah,
jesus, jimmy, sam or thor. You need to step outside the ridgid
confines of your own belief in Jeebus and see the larger picture.

#52. They don't assume a creator; rather, they assume it can't have happened by chance.

Aliens coulda done it from 'nuther yoonaverse and sat back 'n watched, ya hear? :silly:

Someone has to have done the designing or else it's chance.

But certainly nothing in the way of revealed religion. It is no more favorable to Christianity than it is to Plato's cosmology, the cosmology of Hindus, or Einstein's more metaphysical speculations. It is ironic that modern day Christians are so enamored of the idea, since they rejected deism as a heresy earlier in history (if memory serves).

Deism doesn't force you to believe in miracles and such or ignore the findings of science. And it doesn't lead to strange ethical constructs, like hating or fearing homosexuals. It is just another way of looking at reality.

I've been fighting an encroachment of ID into our public schools for three years, and reading all of the materials I can get my hands on. All of them posit a creator or designer. That's the basis of the claim: That some intelligence was necessary for the universe, and life on this planet, to exist (be it aliens, a deity, a super-galactic committee of graduate students, whatever). None of the works I have read have said that "Intelligent design can exist without the presence of a creating entity" because that would kill the claim.

So, please. This is very interesting to me. I'd like to know where this one is coming from.

Thanks.

on every ID/evolution thread. In fact, the version of ID that's currently being fobbed off on schools around the country as legitimate science, is nothing more than warmed-over young-earth creationism. It is, as cryingshame correctly points out, philosophy/religion and not science, and has no business being taught in a taxpayer-funded science classroom. Doing so is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

are too intellectually lazy or impaired to understand the points I've made and which I make regarding this subject, it reflects on your own lack of sensiblities.

By the way, Neo-Darwinism is in fact based wholly on Materialism. The philosophy that Physical Matter preceeds Consciousness.

There is no proof of this... NONE.

Darwin's work was based on observed phenomena in the natural world. It presupposes only that natural phenomena have natural origins--as does all science.

There's no proof that Consciousness precedes (correct spelling) Matter, either.

I'm sorry, but that's, at this time, an unanswerable question, and cannot be used as the basis for a theory of creation. Building a foundation for scientific inquiry on the back of an unknown - when empirical evidence shows that matter precedes consciousness, due to the number of interacting neural connections that must be present before consciousness can be detected and communicated - is building on nothing.

Again, I ask for sources.

Who was inspired as a boy to enter biological sciences by Darwin's theory, I am just so depressed and horrified that ID theory is finding any footing in modern theories of the origin of species.

The beauty of natural selection is that the driving force of the origin of species and evolution, is that changes in traits confer advantages in fitness. That is, changes in traits are retained if they give an advantage to an organism or animal to put its genetic material in the gene pool. Thus, genetic changes that do not confer an advantage to an organism have no force to be retained over other genotypes.

We even see this in the case of HIV! Certain subpopulations of the virus are 'fitter' and within an infected person, we can see one subpopulation predominate over other viruses over time. True Darwinian natural selection on the virus level!

You should really see the elegance of Darwin's theory-- a theory based on observations from the field. And a theory that has been validated on all levels of organismal complexity.

When if comes to *science* ID is no theory (note I am not denying the existence of a god or ultimate intelligence here). Just a religious belief that has been given a veneer of respectability by regressive folks.

amoeba. Does it take away the belief of Adam & Eve and God?

You're preaching to the choir, here (pun fully intended.)

Believe me, I know ID as it is proposed in most school districts. What CS was posting was a new variant that I'd like to get into my files before I get blindsided with it at a school board committee meeting.

and it is perfectly reasonable to posit the notion that Consciousness
preceeds Physical Matter in the course of the Universe's unfolding.

I both loved and hated that segment of the class- proving we're really here.

It can't be done, but we spent two whole weeks trying, and hard. Lecture class; something like 200 students. Warm, stuffy room.

A movie was later made based on the same concept. I'll give you a cookie if you guess which one.

theory...
:eyes:

From a book by Anthony Harrison-Barbet, Mastering Philosophy, that I happen to have handy:

"In its widest sense it is used to refer to the doctrine 'that whatever exists, or at any rate whatever can be known to exist must be in some sense mental'. Despite their differing premises the philosophers Leibniz, Berkely, and Hegel would thus all be regarded as idealists."

I would throw Plato in there too. I agree that the philosophy has an ancient pedigree and has been followed by people who didn't lack for intelligence. I don't think scientific findings can ever prove any particular philosophic or theological point of view, although particular results may seem more compatible with one than another.

I would agree that current day science has an institutional or philosophical aversion to the notion. Still there have been notable scientists who seemed to take this position. The astronomer Sir James Jeans for example said that "the universe seems to be more like a great thought than a machine." Einstein said lots of things compatible with the notion as well, I think.

All that being said, I agree that this is philosophy or theology and is best taught in that venue, not a science classroom. North American education doesn't put much stock in philosophy though. Among other things, I don't think the churches want people to be very well schooled in that sort of thinking, as they think it is corrosive of faith. That is why I don't think fundamentalists really know what they are dealing with when they start down this road. You start people thinking like this and they will begin to doubt simple literalist faiths.

I suppose "intelligent design" without a designer is a strand of the Buddhist tradition, among others. I don't know about that aspect, but even if it has to imply an intelligent designer, it doesn't have to imply one that is good or cares about people. So, Christians should be careful about pushing this so hard. I think they see it as a wedge issue, to separate the population from rationalist ideas. But like the Shiavo case, this wedge issue could backfire on them.

has the same exact problems that the old containered conscious
philosophies posited. That is, if one accepts a vast, what some refer to as a battery, or some dissipated form of energy that manifests itself as a consciousness, then one at some point
must start ascribing values to this thing in order to lay the
framework for a philosophy of intelligent design. That is, one
must posit that this thing has the ability to create our universe and
that this ability is extremely complex in order to account for the
complexity of the universe. If one simply posits a vast distributed "conciousness" then one cannot assert that this thing has the inherent abilities necessary to design the universe. These people are simply trying to dress the Judeo-Christian god in different clothes. Regardless of whether this consciousness is contained within in a "container", as is our conscious contained within
our physical bodies, or it is distributed loosely, the same problem exists. You either believe in a higher power, or you don't, and it doesn't matter whether this higher power is red or green, allah or god, jesus or oprah.

It would only imply intelligence in a sort of teleological way. I am just talking about a thought experiment here. It certainly wouldn't say anything about ethics or the nature of such a being. Christians seem to assume that somehow the two are linked.

Furthermore, fine-tuning cosmological arguments (which I think are the strongest of these arguments) don't in any sense argue for a 6000 year old universe. They don't challenge the basis of modern physics, just raise questions about probability and how best to interpret what seems to be a low probability conjunction of physical constants and initial conditions (many worlds or purposeful intelligence). John Leslie's book Universes goes into this at length in a readable style (to me anyway), without coming down on one side or another.

So, even if one chooses the creator option over the many universes option, you are still a long, long way from the fundamentalists' 6000 year old universe. In fact, I think these arguments do more to hurt the case for the 6000 year old "bearded man on a cloud" fundamentalist creator than help it. They don't see that though, perhaps because they don't have any clue about the actual cosmological arguments and science involved.

Cheers!:toast:

it is perfectly reasonable to posit the notion that Consciousness
preceeds Physical Matter in the course of the Universe's unfolding.

It is reasonable only to people with a poor grasp of physics.

David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com
www.thoughtcrimes.org

that's where.

What cryingshame is pointing out is that there are those who believe consciousness comes before matter, not the other way around. At least I think that is where cryingshame is coming from.

From my p.o.v. the data is insufficient at this point to have a firm conclusion.

everyone's orifices. This stuff does not belong in science classes. Philosphy class, yes. Applied religious studdies, yes. Science, NO.
the mob wanting intelligent design does not want to include any other possible religious origin but judeochristian except in private schools. nothing more nothing less.
maybe we could have classes to teach about the hundreds of millions of people who have been raped,tortured, murder by intelligent design creationists in the last 2000 years.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

Does it help your 'cause' to try to make people believe the opposite of the truth? I cannot imagine it does.

claiming that the only possible theory holds that Physical Matter is the root of Consciousness.

That is the basis premise of Neo-Darwinism.

It is unprovable and there's no reason whatsoever to make it a given when studying Evolution.

in claiming that ID doesn't necessarily involve any sort of Cosmic Creator. In effect, you appear to be backing away from the fact that ID is based on religious belief, and not on scientific fact...perhaps in the belief that that will make it more palatable to some people here. That, my friend, is dishonest.

and what is its relevance in a biology class?

Why are you blatantly trying to insult everyone's intelligence? :eyes:

or Consciousness being dependant on a being?

And why so hostile to the premise that Nature has the inherent capacity for Intelligence?

Sad so many DU'ers can't break through the coffins of their own preconcieved ideas.

Its like saying that gravity is caused by invisible fairies that pull masses towards other masses at 9.8 m/s2. There is no evidence for it! Yeah sure its "possible". Anything's possible . Philosophically significant? Ok, maybe yeah. Scientifically significant? Afraid not.

sounds like the first question to ask an intelligent design theorist.

Science class. ID is not science its theology.

very simple.

It astounds me that DU'ers can't grasp something that simple.

of science. eom

Because that which is not based on materialism is supernatural. Science works within the bounds of the observable natural world.

He got the ball rolling as far as where to look and what to look for in observing life in a natural setting. That's it, the theory today is not the same one he wrote about 150 years ago. We have better equipment, better information, and improved methods on how to explain what is still observed. He was on the right track, but none of his words, nor his theory, were or are taken as sancrosanct, so to say "Darwinism" expresses a philosophy that predates it is silly.

Besides that, I think the biggest problem is this, people expect science to be what it plainly is not, a philosophy. Science has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with question of "Why" or answering the Big Question: Why are we here? Science is a process for explaining observations of the natural world, simply because it is outside the purview of science to even try to use its process to answer such questions. Science answers the "What" and "How" questions very well, but would not be able to answer the Big Question, because that question itself is basically rhetorical.

You are trying to mesh together two separate spheres of thought that were separated many years after Plato and Aristotle. ID fails in science, plain and simple, it is a philosophy, and a valid one at that, evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is a scientific theory that explains phenomenon that we have observed in the natural world very well. To claim that either is what it is not is intellectually dishonest.

For starters, Darwinism is not a theory. That would be like saying Christianity was the theory of how God sent his son to Earth. "Darwinism" may be a philosophy that some have developed to justify the behavior of man, but it really has no place in the biological sciences, which is what the debate is about.

Evolution is a theory that Darwin proposed to explain the observations he made about life based on the knowledge of science available at the time. Darwin never claimed it to be the end all be all final answer. However, the basic theory has held up remarkably well and that is a testament to how much time and effort Darwin put into truly trying to understand what he observed.

Intelligent design as a scientific theory simply does not have the amount of evidence behind it to put it on par with Evolution. In 20 years time every theory of Intelligent Design may be totally disproved. As such, from a scientific perspective, I don't thik it warrants teaching on par with Evolution. What's more I think Intelligent Design as a scientific theory has been so hijacked by people who want to use it to justify their "philosophy" that an objective view of the science behind it is impossible.

And finally, If Darwin himself tried to use his theory to create a philosophy called "Darwinism" he certainly had a peculiar way of doing it since this is what he actually wrote in the conclusions to the Origin of Species:

“To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.”

That sounds quite similar to something you wrote in one of your posts here.

To whit, as I am a person of religious faith, I would postulate that the process of evolution as it occurs consistent with Darwin's theory and subsequent research into it, is God's "intelligent design". So I embrace Evolution and want to understand it because it is a way to more closely understand God, as opposed to negating God. That is my philosophy.

you are reading, but I suspect it comes from folks who spend a lot of time as guests on Art Bell.

David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com
www.thoughtcrimes.org

There is no honest way to teach ID without ignoring the voluminous data that simply supports a Darwinian view of evolution.
What exact philosophical basis is there behind Darwinist theory? Would that be the scientific method!?

ID's philosophical basis, despite your opinion to the contrary, is deeply rooted in the belief of a Genesis based version of creation. Not the scientific method.

One belongs in science class, the other in religious studies.

Philosophical discussion really doesn't belong in a science class.

PHILOSOPHY class, we're talking about a SCIENCE class. There's a very real difference.

is the belief that "nothing that complex could just happen".

It's based upon hubris, plain and simple. We don't know how it could have happened, so it can't possibly be true.

Hubris.

intelligent design couldn't possibly get a mention...

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

So, what? Elves?

Sorry, ID is a back door method for shoving religion into science. The "theory" has been completely discredited.

You can cannot teach ID "honestly" since it is dishonest from the outset.

David Allen
www.blackboxvoting.com
www.thoughtcrimes.org

Now what does that say about the IDers? Stupic and uneducated? Certainly sounds like what he said.

I sometimes feel that the best thing to do about these idiots is to just step aside and let them have their way and then all the educated leave.

Shades of Atlas Shrugged. Maybe Rand had something afer all?

Sigh.

but it is irrational. And those who hold irrational beliefs are almost always threatened by information that challenges those beliefs--because it reveals how tenuous their grip on reality actually is.

for all the educated, rational folks to go! I have said for some time, and more so after the last close election (Yes, Dubya won be about 3 percentage points nationally), that all the educated folks should move to a place where we can have a just, moral, and economically supported state or country with a high quality of life and true equality for all!

Let the dumb butts live free, without any government intrusion and low or no taxes. Let them embrace a theocratic society that embraces ID, and rejects science and other objective findings. And they wonder why their quality of life declines continuously for themselves and their children!

we are still trying to push science out the door in favour of unproven religious fairy tales.

le sigh...

it has no relevance or application. What can one conclude from it? Nothing. What can one do with it? Nothing. There are no applications, no "If...Then", no damn use to it at all. It stops thought, not stimulates it. It cannot be proven or disproven. There is no data to support it, not even a "thought game or experiment". It illuminates nothing, explicates nothing, accomplishes nothing. Science has meaning and consequence, theology has comfort (or terror) for the uneducated and frightened.

"Science" is another word for Knowledge. "Intelligent Design" is another word for Ignorance.

For many years, fundamentalists have tried to bring religion back into public schools. One method that has been exploited is simply changing the way that creationism is perceived by the public; thus, in came the term "creation science," as if adding the word "science" would somehow validate the concept. However, in 1987, the outcome of the Supreme Court case Edwards vs Aguillard was that "creation science" was essentially religion hiding under a false umbrella. Therefore, it was not allowed in public schools.

This led creationists to search for another means to bring religion into the public schools. Therefore, in 1990, the Center for Science and Culture was formed; a Seattle based pseudo-science group founded by 6 fundamentalists. Stripping away the outwardly appearance of religion from their doctrine, they came up with (or at least lead the way promoting) creationism under a new umbrella termed "intelligent design" (ID).

They tout this concept in several ways, but one method is by attacking evolution directly. For instance, they like to attack the term "evolutionary theory." Because "theory" is improperly used on television and the media to mean a "guess," the ID people have pushed the philosophy "evolution is a theory, not a fact." In reality, a scientific theory is an all encompassing concept supported by the scientific literature that explains the breath of the scientific findings. Thousands of papers have clearly shown that evolution continually occurs in and around all living organisms, and it represents the cornerstone of modern biological science. If one wishes to believe that a deity controls evolution, for instance the official position of the Catholic church, then science remains totally neutral to this aspect. Science simply serves to document and explain natural phenomena, not make conclusions about religious beliefs.

The ID concept has caught on enough so that numerous Board of Education members, politicians, judges, and attorney generals are trying to use this guise. This has resulted in numerous people in key positions who now are trying to bring creationism into the public schools disguised as "intelligent design." It is also one important aspect behind the "Academic Freedom of Rights" bills where students would have the right to sue college professors if the students are offended by what is taught in the classroom.

Another new way that evolution will be attacked in the classroom is through the "No child left behind" bill, which has a sneaky provision that the ID people are trying to exploit:

"The conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious and philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may guarantee controversy (such as biological evolution) the curriculum should help students understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

Now, this sounds good at first but the key phrase is "…full range of scientific views…" The ID people are trying to make a case that their concept is valid scientifically, which it is not. It is based on belief; not science. By trying to get public schools to teach this "full range" of views, however, it opens up our public schools not only to Christian creationism, but also to teach other creation/ID concepts that are equally as valid. For instance, this would include such concepts as Raelianism (aliens started life on earth), Shintoism (embraces native deities, spirits of nature, and object worshiping), Navajo (which teaches of the three underworlds that created the four world where we now live), Inuits (which believe man arose from a giant pea pod), Schillukites (which believe humans were fashioned out of clay), and hundreds of other religions across the planet. These religious groups would certainly have a right to sue school districts for excluding their beliefs if the ID people get their religion into public schools. Bringing religion in any form into public schools is a concept that not only people who believe strongly in the separation of church and state should campaign against, but also Christians who do not wish their children exposed to other types of religious beliefs.

BTW Biology, a big hello and welcome to DU. Glad you're here.:bounce:

me extra holidays?

was a hole on the side of Mt. Arafat that leads to the middle
earth via a long windy and very dark cave.

Raymond Mummert, a pastor at a local church, poses in front of Dover Area High School in Dover, Pennsylvania. Mummert supports the school board in the Dover district which voted in October 2004 to require biology teachers to read a statement in class saying Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is not fact, and alternative theories exist, including 'intelligent design,' which supports that life is so complex that it can come only from a higher Creator.(AFP/File/Stan Honda)


Robert Eshbach (L) and Jennifer Miller (R), both biology teachers at Dover Area High School (rear), pose in Dover, Pennsylvania. Eshbach and Miller both oppose the school board in the Dover district which voted in October 2004 to require biology teachers to read a statement in class saying Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is not fact, and alternative theories exist, including 'intelligent design,' which supports that life is so complex that it can come only from a higher Creator.(AFP/File/Stan Honda)


Cars travel Main Street in the town of Dover, Pennsylvania. The school board in the Dover district voted in October 2004 to require biology teachers to read a statement in class saying Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is not fact and alternative theories exist, including 'intelligent design,' which supports that life is so complex that it can come only from a higher Creator.(AFP/File/Stan Honda)

the claim that the absence of religion is a religion in itself?

Darwinism may be a theory, but it's SCIENTIFIC theory and should be taught as such. ID--creationism minus the overt reference to Christianity, is an educated guess.

:shrug:
rocknation

It's philosophy!

If they want this taught, they need to establish a religion course and offer it seperately.

You know, Geometry is all theories. Let's make sure the instructors let the students know that numbers are not proven, but created by an intelligent mystical being.

God also makes children healthy, so instead of dressing out and playing volleyball for P.E. how about they just pray for an hour.

Other proposed classes:

History, God, and You.
Trigonometry: the Trinity of Three-Sided Shapes
Social Studies: How God Made All People Including Brown Ones Who Are Surely Going to Hell.
Study Hall: An Hour of Silent Prayer
Art and the Study of Grisly Religious Iconography
Home Economics, and How to Be A Devoted Mother and Wife
Woodshop: The Profession of Jesus
Physics and Other Mysteries You Don't Need to Concern Yourself With

I recall reading some mathematical examples that were quite amusing.

your proposed classes made me snort coffee all over my keyboard.

ROTFLMAO.

Bring on the Buddist theory! Bring on the multitude of Native American teachings! Bring on the Wiccan & Neopagans! If they teach one with tax dollars they should be required to teach them ALL!

and you see the glazed eyes and the snarling mouths brandished.

Can you imagine one of these people passing this law, and then realizing that Paganism would be taught side by side with their partucular brand of ideology?

I do believe their heads would explode.

Isn't lying a sin? Because these people are NOT being honest about their intentions.

to those who aren't paying attention and think that dangerous theocrats are never pale skinned and tote bibles.

Life all comes from the same source. All the rabbits have a common ancestral species. All the bats have a common ancestral species. All the whales have a common ancestral species. And all the rabbits, bats, and whales have a common ancestral species. You might have to go very far back to find it, but there's a common ancestor somewhere back there.

Evolution makes no claims on the origin of consciousness or the presence of a creator.

Personally, I think it's more miraculous to think that life evolved of its own accord than to think of the big bearded dude in the sky making everything.

and "non-reality based facts."

I have faith that reality is real. I have no proof of this, but I'm going with it nevertheless.

These people are wack jobs.

all love the idea of ID? Maybe this way they might consider
themselves part of some intelligent design rather than just
the fish stuck at the shallow end of the genetic pool.

Since they have this deep-seated desire to inject religion into science classes, turnabout is fair play.

Hey, the Great Winged Puppy, Designer of All, told me that was the way to do it.