According to Exodus, the ten plagues are rivers turning to bloods, frog overpopulation, swarms of gnats, swarms of flies, diseased livestock, festering boils on people and animals, hail storms, locusts, darkness, and then the death of the firstborn. Apparently they missed one- the spread of creationism:
A new front has opened up in the debate over evolution and creationism in Utah, with a proposal to require the teaching of divine design in public schools.
State Senator Chris Buttars (R-West Jordan) has agreed to take the lead in pushing new legislation on the teaching of divine design, also known as intelligent design, in conjunction with evolution in schools.
Buttars is supported by a strong conservative lobby, headed by the Eagle Forum, which has previously sought the inclusion of divine design in the public school science curriculum.
School officials argue that any laws requiring the teaching of divine design could be found in violation of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.
Supporters of the proposal contend, however, that divine design is not the same as creationism. Unlike creationism, divine design simply acknowledges that the world is so complex, its development must have been guided by some higher power. Proponents do not specify who that higher power is.
Some debate, hunh? One side presents evidence for scientific inquiry and scrutiny, the other side thumps a bible, says “God did it,” and launches a political campaign to change biology books and make your kid stupid. We have already dispensed (I have, at any rate) the silly notion that intelligent design is something other than creationism wrapped up in fancy new clothes, but just in case it was not clear enough, let’s do it one more time:
Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, “intelligent design” is inherently a quest for the supernatural. Only one “candidate for the role of designer” need apply. Dembski himself–even while trying to deny this implication–concedes that “if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence.” It must, he admits, be that of a “transcendent intelligence” to whom he euphemistically refers as “the big G.”
The supposedly nonreligious theory of “intelligent design” is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science–to pretend, as one commentator put it, that “faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope.”
The insistence of “intelligent design” advocates that they are “agnostic regarding the source of design” is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a “designer” who is susceptible of scientific study–in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible “designer” is nothing more than a gateway god–metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.
No matter how fervently its salesmen wish “intelligent design” to be viewed as cutting-edge science, there is no disguising its true character. It is nothing more than a religiously motivated attack on science, and should be rejected as such.
Still think this ‘divine design’ is a real scientific theory and not some dressed up religiosity? Let’s see what the sponsor of the bill has to say:
When Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, stood up this week and simultaneously proclaimed that intelligent design theory