Ok, but the main point is that science can indagate further (and that's why scientists exist), while religion assumes the so called dogmas. Science may prove, at that point, that Big Bang happened because [...], that Darwinism (still widely accepted as today) is valid because [...].
I can't accept dogmas in 2010, and I can't accept Intelligent Design (read: no random evolutionism) as this would be in contrast with the free will given by God (that's a thing I really believe in), a free will given to ANY living being that equals to a right to evolute without any external (intelligent) help.
Why God should elect human beings to be the BEST living things? I can see him in front of his TV, billions years ago, watching the evolution and placing bets on which would have been the winner, without doing anything. This is fair. This can agree with a theory in which God created the Big bang and then let the things happen without any external help.
I can't see why natural selection couldn't be accepted by the religion, however... What if men wouldn't have been the winners of the evolution? I'm afraid that it could be in contrast with Jesus and all that stuff (can you wonder Jesus in form of a rob or a dolphin?), so they want to be sure that a "helping hand" helped men to win in the evolutional rush.
What about stem cells research in Texas? Do you know that the Pope has a great influence over stem cells in Italy? Is it fair?!? Is it a science or church matter? Why don't they go (even the Pope) in the streets to really help poor peolpe rather than speaking from their rich buildings, in their rich dresses?
I think that religious matters should be only treated in Churches. Bringing any form of religious beliefs in the institutional buildings, in schools, and so on means being like Iran.
1. You are treating organized religion as the same as Intelligent Design. If Intelligent Design exists, it existed back when the the only life form on earth was a single cell amoeba, well before any higher life forms existed (much less humans). Therefore, human religions are irrelevant to this discussion. So let's keep Jesus, the Pope, and stem cell research out this discussion.
2. What many scientists actually believe is that, although evolution is settled science, there is no proof of, or even any serious evidence to support, the theory (dogma, if you will) of random mutations being the sole force driving of evolutionary change.
3. You are correct about natural selection and Intelligent Design in that they are compatible. Yes, natural selection plays a part (even in Intelligent Design), but natural selection is not what causes
evolutionary change in the first place. It only plays a part in which evolutionary changes stay around.
3. Random mutations are not the same as Free Will. In fact, it is the antithesis of that. Although we call them random mutations, scientists who believe in such things think it can (or could be) explained by science, whereas Free Will cannot be explained by science (if it is in fact Free).
4. So what we are left with is the following:
- A theory of evolution which has been proven.
- A theory of natural selection which has (more or less) been proven.
- A theory of random mutations for which there is almost no evidence whatsoever, other than the religious belief (which one that must accept on faith) that Intelligent Design cannot be true.
- A theory of Intelligent Design that also (like random mutations) has not been proven.
So I don't see the problem with people in Texas saying that:
A. Evolution is proven science
B. There are theories about the cause
of evolutionary change, which includes several unproven theories such as random mutations, Intelligent Design, aliens visiting the earth and leaving new life forms (some atheists and scientists believe this), etc. Period, end of story.
I don't see any harm in this. And I agree with you that any further discussion of Intelligent Design should be taken up outside the purview of science classes.