Sorry you think I’m being disingenuous. I assure you I’m not. I want to know who has taught religious teachings in a science class.
I know what religious teachings are, and am interested to know when and where this has happened.
Teaching “Intelligence” behind complex structures and specified information, is not a supernatural intervention. Again sorry if you think I’m being disingenuous, but it’s a simple fact.
The judge is making assumptions (IMO).
Obviously I see design in nature but that has nothing to do with ID. That merely gave a good explanation of what is obvious to me. And it most certainly isn’t a religious ideology.
So I’m still waiting to see where “religious teachings” are being disguised as science
No, it's not a simple fact, it's ballocks.
There is no evidence whatsoever of "intelligence" behind structures in nature. All the arguments of the ID bunch (a dwindling band these days) amount to futile attempts to show that natural structures or processes could not have arisen naturally. That is merely a dressed up version of the Argument from Personal Incredulity. There is not, and in fact could never be, evidence that any given phenomenon could not have arisen by natural means. The most that could be said, at a given point in human history, is that we cannot, now, see how it arose.
But history and the advance of science shows us clearly what a flawed argument that is. The eye was once said to be irreducibly complex. But we now have evidence for how it arose, not once but several times in the course of evolution. Then the bacterial flagellum was claimed to be irreducibly complex. But now we have evidence that too evolved, from a secretary system. And on and on. Every time a structure is accounted for by evolution, the ID fraternity have to abandon it and find a new example - until that too is accounted for. It's idiotic.
I'm glad to see you mention complex specified information, as that is a key bogus concept of ID. So you are indeed, just as I suspected, a cdesign proponentsist. Good to get that clear at last. Now at least I know who (and what) I am dealing with.
As for "religious teachings", I have told you several times now that teaching that there must be supernatural intervention to account for what we see in nature is a religious idea. There is no scientific basis for it. It is a religious idea, pretending to be science, whose purpose is to predispose children to the idea that there is scientific evidence for a creator God.
Which is a lie and quite inexcusable to teach to children under the guise of science.
.
