Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

[pyroman1]

Originally Posted by PJT04

You can spin it any which way you can. Bottom line is ID is a purely political move. It's nothing but a smoke and mirrors attempt to get Creationism back into the courts and into the classrooms.

Fine, but Creationism still does not specify any particular religion. So the point remains the same as when it was made with ID. That being,

Originally Posted by pyroman1

ID does not support any one religion; therefore, no law is being passed which recognizes a law which establishes an official church of the nation. Nearly every religion has one or more deities, some religions share the same diety (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam). As such, the courts do not have the right to rule against the free exercise thereof by prohibiting all but evolutionism.

replacing ID with the word Creationism.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by pyroman1

Fine, but Creationism still does not specify any particular religion. So the point remains the same as when it was made with ID. That being,
replacing ID with the word Creationism.

--

While I'm in no learned position to abo****ely refute the statement that Intelligent Design is strictly a religious argument, I am aware that its foundational statement *IS* that al components of an object, ie, a simple mouse-trap, are required in order for that trap to operate.

That is NOT a religious statement; if one removes the catch that holds the bar then the trap shall fail to operate and will no longer catch mouse.

It is the same with every cell in a living body - every component of that cell is required in order for that cell to continue to do what it was ordained to do.

These are NOT religious statements.