Sorry, but it's not a stretch. It is a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The very creators of the ID paradigm (William Dembski et al) dreamt up ID in the first place because the Supreme Court ruling of Edwards v Aguillard in 1987 prevented the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution in public schools.
Dembski and chums wanted a more "scientific" basis for creationism, because Edwards v Aguillard prevented them from invoking God and creationism. Hence was born the "Intelligent Designer", a way to bring creationism to schools without referring to God or using the word Creationsim. Dembski and others such as Stephen Meyer and Michael Behe then went on, via the Discovery Institute, to dream up various methods to 'prove' the existence of an intelligent designer; such as Irreducible Complexity, the impossibility of the evolution of bacterial flagella and the eye.
This manifesto was all nicely laid out in what is known as the Wedge document, which the Discovery Institute spewed forth in around 1992.
In summary; The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Unfortunately for them, the short-sighted folk at the DI simply took much of their manifesto from pre-Edwards v Aguillard, and replaced the word "Creationism" with the words "Intelligent Design" to produce the Wedge document.
This became clear as day in Barabara Forrest's cutting testimony during Kitzmiller v Dover, the Supreme Court case I referred you to in my previous posts.
Judge Jones's ruling in that case, and his closing arguments summarise this:
- For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID (Intelligent Design) would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
- A significant aspect of the IDM (Intelligent Design Movement) is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity (page 26)
- The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism (page 31)
- Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)
~
That Intelligent Design is Creationism by another word has been proven by your Supreme Court.
It therefore does fully fall foul of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of your Constitution, as stated by Jones in his ruling above.
