Quite a few of the things you say are really quite extraordinary, so excuse my addressing address them. Your post 16 contains a lot of unnecessary obfuscation in my opinion. (Necessary, perhaps, for you to slide pass the issues, but not necessary if you would be straight-forward.)

about both Intelligent Design and Creationism

They’re basically the same thing, so why write about them as if they are different? The latter is, figuratively speaking, merely a new cloak for the former. One that was apparently intentionally developed by the creationist movement to give itself a new face.

What I doubt is how useful they are to the cause of apologetics.

What on earth do you really mean by this? Apologetics aren’t a field of endeavour, they are arguments or written works (self) “justifying” something. Christian apologetics is what I presume you really mean, by way of a shorthand.

For what its worth, the mere existence of Christian apologetics, to me, illustrates a weakness of interpretations of the bible, etc. While popular science tries to make the original science understandable to a “lay” audience, a big distinction is that the original material—the original scientific literature—stands on its own: it doesn’t need “apologetics” added later “make it right.” That the bible can be read so differently by different Christian groups would seem to say that it doesn’t stand on its own and thus needs the apogetics to “make it right” in the particular interpretation one group or other has.

(This also relates to wider misconceptions among creationists, including IDists, but that’s another essay…)

As a Christian journal, by definition we believe that the universe and everything in it was designed by G-d.

Not all Christians believe in this, in fact I believe its correct to say that only a minority do. What I presume you mean to say is that your journal promotes conservative Christian views, and as conservative Christians “by definition … was designed by G-d”: non-conservative Christian don’t. I imagine they wouldn’t be terribly impressed with your telling them what they believe, either.

I think there is certainly a place for Christian scientists to make a case for ID

Only Christian scientists huh? Or do you mean “Christian scientists”, the general phrase, as in “creationists trying to justify their beliefs using pseudoscience”. Or do you more specifically Christian Scientists (note the captialisation), those who follow “Christian Science” religious beliefs?

And only “make a case for”, not test? Sound like Christian apologetics all the way!

You are aware that, for the latter two groups in particular, this creates a circular, apologetic, loop: you ask that only those who “believe” can promote/test their own beliefs… The up-shot, of course, is that these people try to justify their beliefs, not test them. That reflects a lack of scepticism in their approach. Because they believe in the thing as “a matter of faith“, they can’t be sceptical about it, even by definition. And as a consequence can’t genuinely test it, either. Pass me a Tui, etc.

(You have to admit that Tui line must be one of the most successful advertising jingles in years.)

As regards whether ID should be taught in public schools, I think this is a very complex and political topic.

No, its extremely simple. Its not science, so it can’t be taught as science. That’s all there is to it. Not complicated at all.

It could be taught is in comparative religion studies. You could present it in a science class it to illustrate what science is not, but personally I’d rather see religion in religion classes, history in history classes, etc.

I note that much of the rest of which you “complicate” this with isn’t actually relevant to this particular rhetorical question you pose, but to other issues.

it presupposes that children should be taught in public schools to begin with, which I consider a very distant second to private schools, which in turn are an extremely poor alternative to homeschooling

You presuppose that your typical parent can out-perform a trained teacher. This I really, really doubt. Particularly beyond the first years of primary school.

More to the point, I think that you’re (deliberately?) confusing this with restricting a child’s education to what the parent wishes to impose on them. Its one reason some conservative Christians favour home schooling: nothing about the quality of teaching, as you propose, but about the ability to control and restrict the teaching.

Its a pretty sad thing to be doing to my mind, even though we can all see where it comes from: wanting your kids to be the same and a fear that you’ll “lose” them if they choose other roads than your own. Its selfish, really. You should let them grow up to wherever life takes them. (Paths of crime excepted, obviously.)

I would be forced to ask why they aren’t teaching the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of religion,

Some do, for both of these. Moot point.

The current public school curriculum is just so useless

You mean, it doesn’t suit your bias, or what you’d like to restrict it to.

Trying to enforce religious teaching at a state level just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

This seems to contradict so much of what you’re written before it, that I’m left reading you as meaning that religious teaching should be forced, but you won’t say it openly. Double-speak. Why not just say what you really mean? It’d be a lot simpler. You’re not fooling anyone. Certainly not me

(Hi Alison, bumping into you again!)

Just found your blog via Pharyngula’s latest open thread. Wish I’d known about it ages ago. I’ll be back again

In answer to your question as to what other material was sent out with the Privileged Planet DVD, there was also a booklet ‘explaining’ some of the key points the DVD makes. Such as the supposed statistical evidence in support of an anthropocentric view of the universe.

best wishes

I sometimes think the defense against creationists attempts to take over science classes has to be carried out by pro-science Christians because it is the theists who is most at risk here. Their religious beliefs make them more vulnerable to the anti-science ideas.

One can at least blog about the issues.

The Anonymous post above was from me.

I really enjoy reading your blog – it’s one of the ones on my Google Reader list. Due to alphabetical sorting, it’s immediately above Pharyngula.

I’m really, really annoyed that we have the religious trying to spread creationist nonsense into the New Zealand science curriculum. That said, I’m highly ignorant of what I can personally do to try and prevent it. Any thoughts?

Oh, and as a second question – how do you find out about all this stuff so quickly? Just once I’d like to find out about something local before you do.

If we’re talking about whether Thinking Matters supports ID in principle, then obviously we do. As a Christian journal, by definition we believe that the universe and everything in it was designed by God. And I think there is certainly a place for Christian scientists to make a case for ID, using scientific and mathematical theories. I also think that it is helpful for Christians be educated in the philosophy surrounding science and ID. I recently wrote an article on Thinking Matters in response to some questions about science posed by Dale Campbell, who I think you know. Those sorts of topics are valuable to consider in an apologetics context so that, if asked, Christians can make some kind of reply.

What I think is less useful, though, is trying to use ID as a vector for apologetics. Take Bill Craig’s teleological argument, for instance. He tries to show that the universe must be intelligently designed, based on various physical constants and so on, and the odds of them being exactly right. That’s a good argument for someone who has studied these things for many years. He’s welcome to put it out there and publish it in his scholarly journals and so on, where like-minded people can debate these things. But how useful is it for the lay Christian, who doesn’t know much about science? It takes a lot of (constant) study to achieve and retain even a passing proficiency in any given area of science. Most Christians can’t do this. So I see the value of arguments which require an evidential approach as being very limited. Even if someone is knowledgeable enough to make the argument, there’s no guarantee that an atheist will believe his sources, or not dismiss them as prejudiced anyway, given that no discussion has taken place about the philosophical presuppositions underlying scientific endeavor.

As regards whether ID should be taught in public schools, I think this is a very complex and political topic. I’m really not interested in politics, and I think it would be inappropriate for Thinking Matters to get behind a political campaign. We’re a journal. We write apologetics articles for Christians. If someone from the press were to contact us and ask us whether we, as an organization, think that public schools should be teaching ID, we’d have to have a good think about it and formulate some kind of response. I don’t know what that would be at this stage. To my mind the question is almost irrelevant since it presupposes that children should be taught in public schools to begin with, which I consider a very distant second to private schools, which in turn are an extremely poor alternative to homeschooling. Furthermore, if public schools were to start teaching ID, I would be forced to ask why they aren’t teaching the philosophy of science, and the philosophy of religion, and a lot of other topics which are very important, but which don’t get covered. The current public school curriculum is just so useless in terms of systematic education that I don’t think ID would really fit in. There are too many additional topics which should go along with it. Obviously, given a choice between the emaciated syllabus now in vogue, and a better-rounded one designed according to the assumption that learning involves work and the application of intelligence, I’d choose the latter. But again, that isn’t the question. So, you see, I don’t see this as having a simple yes or no answer.

Moreover (since you’ve got me started), I don’t think the question of whether ID is taught in schools is really very important. I expect parents to take responsibility for their children’s educations. If something is not being taught in school which a parent thinks his child must know, then the parent should teach it. If, for example, I am forced by circumstance to send my daughter to a public school when she is older, it will in no way obviate my own duty as a parent to educate her in religious, philosophical, linguistic, and whatever other areas are not taught in school. New Zealand is becoming a nanny state because parents seem to have started thinking that sending a child to school is a substitute for parenting. It’s not. Delegating some aspect of one’s child’s upbringing doesn’t void one’s own responsibility for it.

Lastly, on a somewhat related note, as a Christian I don’t see political action as a very useful means of facilitating religious belief. Evangelism and apologetics are the means given to change a society. Trying to enforce religious teaching at a state level just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Not that it’s necessarily wrong or bad; I just don’t see that as what Christians should be focusing on.

Hope this answers your question

Regards,
Bnonn

I guess I had just assumed that, as an apologetics journal, it would support ID/creationism as that has been observation of other apologetics websites and personalities.

Is my conclusion about apologetics wrong?