Comments for: “Slow Learners: ACLU Sues Louisiana School Board – Again”

There should be a three-strikes-and-you’re-out rule for school boards.

I have thought oftentimes that there should be criminal penalties for frivolous legislation — legislation carried out by lawmakers who know damm well that their actions are unconstitutional and will result in a lawsuit.

In this case, it’s a school board who knows fully well that it is breaking the law, and does so anyway.

People, especially in positions of power, who knowingly and wilfully break the law in their offocial capacities should be punished and removed from office.

How about a zero-tolerance policy for wilful unconstitutional behavior?

The legal bills incurred by the county should be billed directly to the citizens of the county, not bundled into their normal taxes.

Those politicians or school board members would be voted out of office in no time.

Dave C says: Those politicians or school board members would be voted out of office in no time.

And yet, they’re not. Go figure. Scary, that the lives of all those kids are in the hands of this board, and that only a handful of parents object.

Dave C,

I like that idea. The idea of opening up your mailbox to find a special county assessment to pay for religion might finally get the good citizens to say “enough”. I would think those responsible would be sent packing.

Oh, oh, I was a little in the “slow learner category” myself.

Now, I get it, (Duh!) and I also think it is a great idea, DaveC.

This is where AU and like-minded secularists are taking our nation. I dare you to read the following.

On the Cusp of a Crisis
Quebec’s Quiet Revolution
March 10, 2008

I recently heard a story that is both fascinating—and disturbing. The story was told by Tessa Littlejohn. She is a flight attendant who lives in Ontario. Tessa recently worked with another flight attendant from Quebec, whom I will call Cecile. As they worked, Cecile told Tessa all about her boyfriend, Gerard. Cecile was wearing a ring on her left hand, so Tessa asked her if she was engaged. Cecile blushed. “Actually,” she said, “Gerard and I have been married for two years.”

Then why on earth was she calling Gerard her “boyfriend”? Because, Cecile explained, no one in Quebec gets married anymore. If she referred to Gerard as her husband, Cecile said, “I would sound like an old lady. It would feel too weird.”

Tessa was not too surprised at Cecile’s reasoning, but it did make her think about what happens when a society abandons God and His laws.

For Quebec, this abandonment began during what became known as the Quiet Revolution. As Richard Neuhaus writes in the March issue of First Things, up until 1960, when Quebec’s Liberal Party took power, there was an almost total synthesis of Church, culture, and state; the Catholic Church provided nearly all educational and social services.

As American scholar Charles Doran notes, it was Catholic clergy who helped people survive the hardships of a new and rough land, and “provided the social cement for the colony.” But in the 1960s, Canadians abandoned their Judeo-Christian values in favor of modernity. And as Doran notes, the Catholic clergy “became an embarrassing reminder of a past that everyone wanted to forget.” Tragically, the Church willingly cooperated in its own retreat.

The predictable result of this revolution was that the role of the state became greatly enlarged, because the state alone was capable of implementing desired social changes. Today, nearly five decades later, the churches largely stand empty—and the consequences of modernity are on stark display.

Of all the Canadian provinces, Quebec has the lowest marriage rate. It also has the lowest birth rate—the province is literally dying out. Quebec’s abortion rate is higher than all other Canadian provinces, with 30 percent of all pregnancies ending in abortion! Quebec leads the other provinces in divorce and suicide rates as well. And its chief city, Montreal, has become a notorious haven for pedophiles, according to Canada’s leading news magazine.

As Tessa notes, “Society is collapsing; they are on the cusp of a crisis that is only mitigated by the fact that they are part of a larger country, which is not at the same point of moral failure. If you want to know what happens to society when it rejects God,” Tessa concludes, “look at Quebec.”

What is happening to French Canadians is tragic—and it should serve as a warning to those of us living south of the border. Religious faith and practice cannot be cut adrift from a healthy society—not if the society, that is, wants to stay healthy.

Americans have already traveled perilously far down this same road, and suffer many of the social traumas Quebecers do. The question is: Are we going to continue down this same, destructive road—or change course? Will we learn from the disastrous lab experiment conducted to the north—or copy it?

And I thought I was guilty of veering off-topic!

Marty, that was like a total troll dropping.

That’s quite a reach in logic there Marty. I’m constantly reading ridiculous rationalizations for why governments should become religious institutions. This is a complete lack of critical thinking typical of people that believe in absolutely anything. So here’s one for you Marty: Ok, so a squirrel was run over in front of my house the other day because the guy that ran over it wasn’t in church at that moment where he should have been. And if that squirrel wasn’t run over by a car then my sister wouldn’t have required that surgery which killed her. It’s obvious that if that guy was in church when he should have been that my sister would be alive today. Duh?

Marty: I double-dog dare you to read the following:

First Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment

And, by the way, stay away from your local board of education. Education does not need you.

Marty,

re: “the churches largely stand empty” & “Montreal, has become a notorious haven for pedophiles”

Hmm, unemployed Catholic priests and an increase in pedophiles.

“The legal bills incurred by the county should be billed directly to the citizens of the county, not bundled into their normal taxes.”

Dave, like Sky, I think this is a great idea. Let the citizens see how much this unlawful behavior really costs them. Let them see how much it costs the school children.

I think its a great idea also, but a better one might be to make the individuals on the school board who vote for these policy make the payment. Or some combination of the two.

“…make the individuals on the school board who vote for these policy make the payment…”

Alan, I can appreciate that idea, but it might not have the desired effect. I’m afraid it might escalate into corruption among school boards. Get a wealthy extremist on a school board, and who knows what kind of chaos might result?

I think the citizens must ultimately foot the bill since they are ultimately responsible for placing members on the school board.

Mark/ty also violated AU commenting policy by copying material without linking to the source. Here is the source:

http://www.breakpoint.org/list.....sp?ID=1633

As I wrote on the other thread that he spammed,

I don’t know upon which planet the “America” you speak of exists, but religion seems almost too alive in the America that is situated on the third rocdk from the sun. Watch any election campaigns lately?

If, by some peculiar optical effect, you’re describing the same America, may I recommend Iran or Afghanistan. They have all the “God’s laws” you want.

Oh, yeah, it’s not YOUR god…

People like him are dangerous because they don’t feel that they have to consider the wishes of anyone else. People like him are what make the Second Amendment so important.

My son’s french class visited Montreal, Quebec for Mardi Gras. I didn’t realize I was sending him into the hart of darkness at the center of the black hole of the colapse of Westren Civilization!

Like “early childhood education” this so-called “school field trip” must have been part of the vast “gay agenda” consperacy.

I’m just thankful he came back alive!

PS: Chuck Colson ought to call his web site “breaking & entry point”.

de dee de dee (Twilight Zone theme song.) I went from one thread to a different thread and had to double check. Yes, sir, same posts different thread.

I guess Marty is one of those that feels he can’t be heard unless he repeats himself across multiple threads. Poor Marty. A lone ranger of righteousness sending messages from the perilously evil land to the north overtaken by the homosexuals and homosexuals supporters.

Might I ask you Marty, if you didn’t have the gays to hate, who would be your substitute target of intolerance?

The target of his spam seems to be the heterosexuals…

Oh, sorry. I always presume that they tie in all the “sins” of the heterosexuals to the homosexual agenda, and there’s this strange association amongst the RRR that pedophilia is synonymous with homesexuality.

My sincere apologies, Marty. It’s good to know that the moral decline in Canada isn’t because of the gay population.

Marty says:

“This is where AU and like-minded secularists are taking our nation. I dare you to read the following.”

It’s a quiet day here in NorCal Marty. Just waiting for a little rain and surfin’ the net. Your dare was the most exciting thing to come along since I cleaned the bathroom this morning so I took it. Flat out. Just dove right in.

I was expecting, even hoping for a little thrill but it didn’t happen. Thrillus interruptus my friend. And you know Marty, that seems to be the outcome with religious stuff pretty much all the time.

I saw a great production of The Wizard of Oz last night at my niece and nephews school. It’s all about the drama isn’t it buddy. Respect the flash, don’t ask too many questions, DO NOT pull the curtain aside and the scam can go on and on.

Read “The God Delusion” Marty. You really need to do that.

John Adams miniseries begins now on HBO 8:00 EST, and again at 10:00.

Upon one remark of one flight steward, we are supposed to believe that Quebec (pop. 7.5 million) has “abandoned God” and is “collapsing.”

Perhaps that standard of evidence is sufficient for the RR, but it just won’t do when it comes to convincing people who use critical thought.

David, you found the flaw in Marty’s post, i.e., the source is Breakpoint. That renders the entire article suspect. It reads like a spam e-mail with the sole intent to scare people.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program. Yes indeed, if the citizens of this parish received a bill for the legal fees this board has racked up, they would certainly be whistling a different tune.

Dave, funny you should make that observation. I did too. Out of curiosity, I googled “Montreal churches” and found a link that begins with:

“Montreal is a city of many churches. This page only describes a few.

Many parish churches are also notable, but are not necessarily open except during services.”

http://www.montreal.com/tourism/churches.html

Apparently there are still some church goers in Montreal. There are some beautiful churches there, too, by the way.

Legally, I don’t know how you would do it, but another measure would be to remove any board members that vote for a provision or policy that ends up being found illegal in court.

I do agree that schools should not push any religion, but they can also not push ‘no religion.’ For once, the ACLU was right in the school not funding a religious activity. The RR would go nuts if any public school started asking students to either salat or at least sit quietly while the teacher led in the Muslim prayer. Many people don’t get how the laws protect them.

The issue comes when we get to issues like evolution or intelligent design. With such vast support for each theory, it only makes sense that each be taught and be taught fairly. Schools should be about providing opportunities to learn, not indoctrination. To rule out either option, design or evolution, would be indoctrination.

And I can’t believe anyone would use evidence from breakpoint on this site.

Shadrach said: “Many people don’t get how the laws protect them.”

Excellent point, but many of us do. For instance while I protect my own rights to freedom of religion, I am also protecting yours.

“Schools should be about providing opportunities to learn, not indoctrination.”

As soon as ID can present some facts to validate their position, present some of the “science” they’ve done, I’m sure they’d be given consideration. But without the science, it’s simply a supernatural proposition that can’t be tested. Teach the facts - anything else is indoctrination.

ID creationism is not a scientific theory. It is a religious ideology using a contrived “scientific controversy” as a pretext for introducing religion in our public school’s science classrooms.

My belief is that our new century is going to be the century of biotechnology. We need the next generation to fully understand and master biology, and that means learning about evolution and genetics in a deeper, more meaningful way than ever before.

We cannot waste our limited educational resources on contrived “controversies” that only serve to promote religious ideologies.

“We cannot waste our limited educational resources on contrived “controversies” that only serve to promote religious ideologies.”

Well said! Teaching sound science, that which has been rigorously tested and researched, is not pushing “no religion”. Religious ideologies have no place in science classes.

Actually, more than religious ideology, it was philosophical and scientific both that a Creator, see Dec. of Independence, created the universe and everything therein. That is until men like Darwin try to convince us that theories about evolution exclude the possibility of a Creator–which they don’t. I actually have a thing for quantum physics, it goes back to when I was getting a chemical engineering degree before I decided to become a history teacher, and I still can’t find how anyone proves that something comes from nothing. If you take design entirely out of the picture, you say ‘there was once nothing and then something happened to make something out of that nothing. After that something came into being, it began to evolve. That process of evolution, over billions of years, has led us to be what we are today, except for human beings, who are de-evolving, because we kill each other faster and more efficiently every day and will soon become extinct.’

That sounds like fun and all, but is entirely theoretical and should be placed higher on the faith list than simply saying ‘as our forefathers believed, at some point a greater Intelligence gave the initial design for our planet.’

To not admit that is being atheistic, which is itself a religion, and placing that religion above every other religion on the face of the planet.

I think the best way to uphold the wall in this instance is to simply teach both. You can teach one as historic and one as modern if you wish, but they should have equal footing in the curriculum. There are plenty of creation scientists out there whose ’scientific’ evidence you could use if you so desire.

In a very broad, general, sense “creationism” might be characterized as the belief that, somehow, someway, God had something to do with making things the way they are. While it would be logically possible to believe in a God of some sort and not believe that is true, I’ll bet that very few people who do believe in God would deny it.

Since the belief in God is widespread, the belief in this very general form of “creationism” should be widespread also, including everyone from the Pope to those who believe Elvis is alive. It certenly does not have to be “taught”.

You would think that the various ID, Young Earth, Old Earth, etc. creationists would be happy with this situation and leave well-enough alone. But they ain’t!!! Why? Because Creationism isn’t about God’s creation - its about forcing dirt-simple, ignorant, protestant fundamentalism onto our school children through the power of the state.

If God created the world and gave us our intelligence, then we should use it to study creation and learn from it as it is and not try to impose our poetic imaginations on what we have been given.

“…there was once nothing and then something happened to make something out of that nothing…”

Shadrach, have you read Victor Stenger’s “God: The Failed Hypothesis”?

He addresses this assumption aptly in the chapter Cosmic Evidence.

Oh Shadrach, I see you’ve been visiting those creationist websites.
NOTHING in modern evolutionary theory says “something came from nothing”. MET says nothing about abiogenesis, how life began. MET covers everything that has happened since to explain the biodiversity of life on earth. And this view is neither “atheistic”, nor is it a religion. It is simply an explanation that fits the facts we see in the natural world. And it is modified as new discoveries are made.
The concept of life “evolving” doesn’t equate to “improving”, and only someone with a religious bias would tag on “except for human beings, who are de-evolving, because we kill each other faster and more efficiently every day and will soon become extinct.” This presupposes that humans are evolutions pinnacle, evolutions goal. And that evolution is a moralistic process. None of which is supported by the evidence.
And it is evidence that must be taught in science class.

Speaking of evidence, I and many many others would love to see some from the ID community. They have been repeatedly invited to supply what (if any) they may have.
And the silence has been deafening.
“Teach the controversy” and “academic freedom” are all the Discovery Institute is peddling these days.
But their “controversy” is actually “I don’t like your facts”, and “academic freedom” is actually “I want to redefine what science is so your facts stop bothering me”.
If that’s the kind of education you think is good for our kids, then the next generation can look forward to stimulating careers as ditch-diggers and burger-flippers.

I have a lengthier reply to Shadrach’s post awaiting moderation, but I wanted to add this tidbit….

If atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.

There was nothing. Then there was something! And the cause of this transition was neither nothing nor something..

OK. Praise be to Allah. But what does this have to do with evolution? Or biology in general? Why would it come up in a science class?

Shadrach, I don’t think evolution is in any way contridictory to a belief in God. And I don’t think “nothing / something / not something made not nothing” is anything we need to be discussing in high school biology class.

I am glad the effort for public school prayer remains countered.

As for ID and evolution, the big problem with “teaching the controversy” is that there is no scientific controversy. The scientific community treats evolution as fact. A science teacher cannot honestly label this as a scientific controversy when ID’s only proponents are political activists.

A public school need not be silent about the issue. Science teachers are free to discuss ID, so long as they don’t pass it off as in any way endorsed by the scientific community. A history class can cover much ground here, as can a current events course. A course on religion (one that informs students but includes no inducements toward any particular one) might say even more.

On another note, I have an interested curiosity here. What is wrong with believing in God with all the main tenets of Christian theology and also believing in evolution?

I hope this does not seem too far afield a question; it is the source of much opposition to church-state separation, after all.

Shadrach said: “That is until men like Darwin try to convince us that theories about evolution exclude the possibility of a Creator–which they don’t.”

Can you point me to where it is that Darwin spent all this time and energy trying to exclude God?

Shadrach, to be honest, I’d be horrified at the idea of having my children be your captive audience for history or any other subject matter. You have an unyielding attitude that you know better than others, and that somehow your beliefs are to be equated with facts.

It is actually Christians who believe that something came from nothing. There was darkness, God said, “Let there be light.” Something from nothing. Ex nihilo.

“If atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby.”

Rick, I like that analogy. Some people of faith, not just the RR, have a tendency to see belief as some default state of being. I was a person of faith at one time and I was inclined to this view, too. Finding myself now on the other side of that spectrum, I look at it much differently. No one is born believing anything. Adopted children follow the faith of their adoptive parents, if any. A child adopted by a practicing Jewish family doesn’t spring into being practicing the faith of its birth parents. Non-belief is our “default” state.

However, I understand that some people need faith, and I don’t judge them for it, nor do I expect them to defend themselves for their beliefs. I expect the same in return.

“I expect the same in return.”

Amen, Jax, and there is no legitimate reason you shouldn’t have your expectations met.

My motto - Live and let live.

They go deaf when you tell them you’ve heard their beliefs, but choose not to adopt them as your own. Deaf as doorknobs.

Rick R: Yeah, what you said (in your last two posts).

Alan, I agree that TofE does not contradict God, but it does disprove a literal interpretation of the Bible. Many people get very up-tight about that. I can’t help but wonder if they are worshiping the Bible instead of God–kinda of like their opposition to Earth-based and neo-Pagan religions worshiping the creation rather than the “creator.” only they worship the word rather than the “writer” or at least the inspiration for the word.

Shadrach, as others have mentioned, nothing about evolution is a disproof of the existence of God.

Nothing about evolution addresses the origin of life. That is the study of abiogenesis, but not evolution.

You need to learn your history better.

Or stop trying to teach it.

“On another note, I have an interested curiosity here. What is wrong with believing in God with all the main tenets of Christian theology and also believing in evolution.”

Fairly easily answered–
In explaining sin and salvation, Paul said,”Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–(Romans 5:12)”… so there must be one man by whom all inherited a tendency to sin, and under evolutionary theory there cannot be any such one man unless we go back hundred of thousands of years to where he may have been an ape-man [David Attenborough's term]; unless perhaps in the believed disastrous supervolcanic explosion which brought the human population down “as low as 30 repoducing females” about 70,000 years ago, which would still be contrary to the first man passing on a ’sin nature’ to all people.

Then Paul goes on to say “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5;19).

So, theologically, there must be one man by whom sin came, and one man by whom it may be compensated for. If Adam were only figurative, so may be Christ… if sin is only dealing with many ancient tendencies to survive and flourish [greed, power, sexual conquests, fear, et al] that people overcome in differing levels of chemical reactions within physiology, then the strictest literalistic theology can be destroyed to agnosticism/atheism, or downgraded to less literalism; or else replaced fundamentally by another belief system.

Go ahead and jump on this, if you wish, but remember it was an answer to what appeared to be an information-seeking question.

RE: What is wrong with believing in God with all the main tenets of Christian theology and also believing in evolution?
RE: it does disprove a literal interpretation of the Bible…

Far be it from me to speak for all of Christianity, but it is really only fundamentalist protestant Christianity, which requires a literal interpretation of the Bible, that has a big problem with evolution.

Berry Lynn, the executive director of AU is both a Christian and a Reverend. I think it is obvious that he doesn’t have a problem with science or evolution. There is nothing in evolution, or in science, that necessarily contradicts either religion or Christianity in general.

One particular Christian sect does have a big problem with it. But that’s their problem. If you want to treat your religion as if it were a scientific theory, well, theories are open to falsification.

“They go deaf when you tell them you’ve heard their beliefs, but choose not to adopt them as your own. Deaf as doorknobs.”

I’ve experienced that too. Sometimes RR-type folks answer with the excuse that what I was taught wasn’t the true faith, that sect XYZ is the one with all the answers, etc. It’s useless to reason with most of them. They seem to have rejected reason. It must be the only way possible to remain a fundamentalist.

Thanks for the responses. It was indeed an information seeking question, and I am the more knowledgeable after hearing its answer.

RE: If Adam were only figurative, so may be Christ…

Boy, am I getting out of my element here, but I don’t think that is anywhere near being so. The four Jesus stories are very different from Genesus in character, literary intent, and historical providence.

Characterizing the Genesus creation myth as a myth and Adam as an “everyman” character in no way discounts the Jesus stories as being legendary history, or Jesus as a historical personage.

Not that I’m an expert, but that seems obvious to me.

The theology, as well as the parallel structure, do indicate thus. One way I have seen this paraphrased: “As through one man all sin and die; through another one all may be forgiven and made alive.”

It’s hard to accept a concept as half literal and half figurative, unless the concept itself means little or nothing to the perveiver.

We could take this one step further, and consider the Seventh Day Adventists, whose theology must include not only creation and no evolution, but a week of creation which cannot be otherwise but 7 24-hour days… the reason being their belief that the return of Christ was delayed because Christians historically have not observed the (7th day) sabbath. If the sabbath ever, from time immemorial, varied from what most Christians still fail to do (or even consider), their theology about themselves has the bottom fall out (they came from the Adventist movement of the 1830’s/40’s which projected a date which did not happen, so the sabbath was their explanation of why).

Biblical literalists always strike me as kind of sad (when they aren’t out waging war against the Enlightenment and individual freedoms, which generates quite different emotions).
It just seems to me like a bunch of people fussing over notes, while completely missing the music.

Well, I guess I asked for it. This line of thought strikes me as being an example of some sort of sympathetic magic. Since it is one, and only one, personage who will save us, there must be one, and only one, personage to blame for the whole tragedy. Otherwise, I suppose, you would have to have multiple Redeemers, one for each of many “original sinners”.

There seems to be a kind of a literary parsimony operating here; since one-to-many-to-one makes for a really good story, it makes for a really good truth.

Rick R, exactly! They seem to miss the point entirely and hang so tenaciously to the dogma that the lose the spirit, the love, the message. They seem like dupes to me–tricked by some 2000+ years dead men who had limited knowledge and experience.

Please do correct me if I am wrong, but did not the theories of evolution spawn the notion of abiogenesis?

Also, let’s take evolution to its logical extension: if everything is constantly evolving, then where did it start? Something had to happen at the very beginning to jump-start the whole process. Whether or not you guys believe in the Big-Bang or whatever theory you confess, everything had to start somewhere.

I will agree that many proponents of ID are wanting to push a non-evolutionary idea, but if you will re-read my post, you’ll see that I am not talking about that at all. As I said, evolution doesn’t discount creation. I’m glad you all agreed with that.

So, when we take this back to the theory of where all life began, the starting point for 9th grade biology and general science far before that, you are saying that your theories are more ‘logical’ than ID? As you have seen, I am not against the theory of evolution, it helps us understand all sorts of stuff, but I have not yet seen a theory of the beginning of life that seems any better or more prove-able than ID.

So teach me.

You’re still proposing that we teach “The Goddidit Theory,” Shadrach. No matter how you package it, tie it up with bows, whatever, it is religion as the foundation. The tired, and old circular argument of evolution also being religion, atheism, is poppycock.

I’d be more than happy to look at some of the peer-reviewed scientific research that has been done in the name of Intelligent Design. Do you have any?

Shadrach, you did indeed say that the theory of evolution and what I called a broad creationism do not contradict one another. And, as I said, it is easy to infer that the large majority of people do indeed have some sort of “God did it” belief. So there really isn’t anything that needs to be taught in a biology class other than the science of biology.

The question about the origin, rather than the evolution, of life is very interesting. At one time the theory of “spontaneous generation” had it that life was being created from inanimate mater continuously. This was easy to observe, as when meal-worms suddenly appeared in an apparently lifeless canister of wheat.

This theory was most convincingly falsified by Louis Pasture using meat broth in a flask with an S shaped opening to the air. This occured in 1859, roughly in the same time frame as Darwin’s theory of evolution.

I have read that he was in part motivated by his Catholicism, which predisposed him against spontaneous generation. But he didn’t preach. He experimented. Would that our current day ID dogmatists do the same.

Albatross, I liked your term “The Goddidit Theory”.

The fundie ‘christians” always end up with “Gee whiz, God musta dunnit” when confronted with any mystery.

Like why bad things happen…”God has a purpose”. My question is, why didn’t God prevent the badness, or save the people’s lives, so they would see he had saved them, and turn to him?

The truth is, bad things happen to people because they were unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, like the bridge collapse in Milwaukee (or was it Minneapolis), or the recent crane collapse in NYC.

Regarding the mystery of how life began, it began because complex carbon molecules formed that were capable or reproducing themselves.

It’s really quite simple.

Maybe God did it. And maybe not. Maybe God exists. And maybe not.

If he exists, and after my death I get to meet him, I will know.

If he exists, and he’s peed off at me because I questioned his existence, then he is very needy indeed, and very, very imperfect. If God exists, he must be perfect. So if he’s mad at me, he is imperfect, and therefore does not exist.

If he exists, and he is NOT mad at me, then I will proceed to ask him many questions…such as why does he allow bad things to happen to people?

Shadrach, have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor? To simplify it, any explaination should make the least assumptions and eliminate anything that is not observable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_Razor). Therefore, because an intelligent creator, i.e., God. cannot be observed, we cannot assume that an intelligent entity created anything. However, science does offer other explainations that can be observerd, tested, dated, etc., that would offer a better explaination. This does not disprove an intelligent creator, just that an intelligent creator cannot be proven. Following Occam’s Razor, though, eliminates an intelligent creator until one can be observed.

This school board is apparently unaware that in 1915 the Louisiana Supreme Court declared sectarian school sponsored Bible reading unconstitutional as violative of the state constitution’s religious freedom provisions prohibiting sectarian instruction in public schools in effect at that time in Herold v. Parish Board of School Directors!

This is the only known case in the South where Bible reading in public schools was struck down, at a time when the practice was allowed or required in all other Southern states and school districts.

So first, no one has given any scientfic alternatives to creationism, we just agree that evolution doesn’t rule it out.

I am familiar with Ockham’s razor; although I do not agree with your direct interpretation of it. I would say more that it means ‘if everything else is equal, the simplest solution is most right.’

Are you familiar with Schrödinger’s cat? Basically it is dealing with quantum mechanics and is a response to Coppenahgen’s interpretation of Bohr’s quantum mechanics theory. Coppenhagen basically establishes that something isn’t real until it is observed (I think that would more prove your point), but Schrödinger gives his theory of a cat in a box being both dead and alive until the box is opened to show the inconsistency of this theory.

I actually have yet to go scouring the creation scientists’ webpages, but if neccessitated then I’ll do so. Here’s what I would call the issue, in the beginning, God and something from nothing are not equal and as it is, I would say we could observe “God’s work” more easily than something coming from nothing.

Shadrach, the Big Bang Theory, for starters, is a much more credible (and scientific) alternative to creationism. I most emphatically disagree that “god’s work” is observable, particullarly if it is couched in a six-day creation scenario.

Shadrach, if you prefer to attribute that which you cannot explain to God, you are certainly free to do so, but for you to think that everyone should reach the same conclusions you have,is simply absurd.

Creationists remove themselves from the arena of science by claiming no need to perform empirical studies, and then claim that their beliefs are science. Much as they suggest that we all begin with presuppositions, they actually begin with religious dogma. God as the purported beginning removes any consideration of anything that doesn’t begin with God. That is religion, not science, and has no place in a science classroom.

How can you say that “God’s work” is NOT something from nothing? Ex nihilo - everything from nothing - implied by Genesis.

And finally, you said: “I have not yet seen a theory of the beginning of life that seems any better or more prove-able than ID.” Then you said: “I actually have yet to go scouring the creation scientists’ webpages, but if neccessitated[sic] then I’ll do so.”

If you have not compared the creationist “science” with empirical science, how then, have you reached your conclusions that it simply is more logical?? What is provable in their work, in your eyes, if you haven’t even explored the work? Where is the data to demonstrate the strengths of the ID theory? I’ve only seen works which find fault with theories that might be incompatible with the Bible. Weakness in other theories doesn’t strengthen your own theory.

As near as I know, scientists have no good answer as yet how the very first life developed. From fossil evidence, it was very soon after Earth cooled and the heavy bombardment (asteroids and lots of them) died down billions of years ago. It was all single cell life. But how did those cells get there? Did it start with some self-replicating molecule? Nobody knows.

So what should one make of it? I am leery of filling our gaps in knowledge with divine miracles. There is not much on Earth that survived from that early period (our planet is quite geologically active). Perhaps in the future we will be able to reconstruct what happened.

A good biology course should indeed mention the gaps in our scientific knowledge. It is inspiring to students that there is plenty of room for future discovery.

Albatross, you misinterpret the biblical idea of creation. It is not everything from nothing, it is everything from God. From a biblical view, He is the eternal starting point of everything. And I am not saying that any of you will ever agree, but that should not rule out its ‘teachability.’

I sort of agree with Dave C. The gaps in our knowledge are an inspiration, but students should not be left to ‘re-invent the wheel.’ I think they should be objectively taught the most popular theories on how things came to be and then be left to make up their minds for themselves. I don’t understand why that is not an acceptable alternative to you guys.

Also, Big Bang starts with space dust and explains the formation of the universe. we still need to get back to where the space dust came from, but that’s kind of moot at this point.

As for where my info is coming from thus far, I did much study a few years back on the different theories of genesis. I looked at purely scientific journals, the Bible (of course), and the work of popular creationists at that time. So, it’s all a bit dated and just from my memory, but that’s why I haven’t gone to any creatonists webpages recently.

I’ll be checking out Stenger’s work soon, as recommended. If you have any other sources that I should look into, I’ll try.

Shadrach, I completely disagree with the “teachability” of creation science. It is not science and cannot be taught as such. However, in a non-sectarian curriculum, I am all for it being taught in a philosophy, comparative religions, or literature classes

Further, the gaps in current scientifically accepted theories do not leave students to reinvent the wheel, but scientists to continue to study these theories to fill the gaps and to modify current theories as appropriate.

Shadrach, a few questions: if creation stories should be taught alongside evolution out of fairness, then whose creation myths? Christian? Hindu? Native American?
If Christian, which creation narrative? There are 2 in Genesis.
Should we teach young earth? Old earth? ID? Should we teach kids what science really is, which is gathering evidence for hypotheses from the natural world, and testing those hypotheses again and again? That science is about skepticism and the value of evidence? That science isn’t something you “believe in”?
And why is only evolution singled out as unfair in public school classes? Why not math? Should we also teach that some folks think 2+2=5 and let kids decide which math they will learn? After all, it’s only fair.

Are you beginning to see why this fairness argument is thin at best, and potentially disastrous to our kids education at worst? Taken to it’s logical extreme, is it really a good idea?

Think about it.

Then there are the Holocaust deniers. These people fervently believed the Holocaust never happened, and that public school history classes are teaching lies. These folks would jump all over the new concept of “academic freedom” (a term being perverted beyond recognition thanks to the same folks who brought you a new definition of the word “family”), and would LOVE to tell your kids all about it in history class.

It’s only fair.

“I think they should be objectively taught the most popular theories on how things came to be and then be left to make up their minds for themselves. I don’t understand why that is not an acceptable alternative to you guys.”

ID or creationism may be a “popular theory” with some people, however the fact remains that it is not a scientific theory. It provides no evidence and no testable hypotheses. It is not science and has no place in a science classroom. What is so hard to understand about that?

Shadrach said: “Albatross, you misinterpret the biblical idea of creation. It is not everything from nothing, it is everything from God. From a biblical view, He is the eternal starting point of everything.”

Have I “misinterpreted” the Bible? Your arrogance is astounding. Question: Was the “space dust,” or matter, already there, or did God whip it up?
Ex nihilo. Something out of nothing.

You readily admit that you are not up-to-date on the “theory” of ID, but that your knowledge comes from past studies of “purely scientific journals, the Bible (of course), and the work of popular creationists at that time.” Perhaps, after you’ve looked over some “up to date materials,” you’ll be able to provide us with that information on ID that you believe “proves” the theory, and makes it more logical than all other theories. I look forward to that. But since the Bible has changed little, and a literal interpretation of Genesis is your most logical explanation, I somehow doubt you’ll have much to provide. Quite obviously, I am in agreement with the other posters here on the “teachability” of creation, and where it fits in the science curriculum. It doesn’t.

Creation stories for explaining the origin of life? How about this one?
“The Great Albatross” http://www.spiralgoddess.com/CreationStory.html

Ahh, slow internet with timeouts that erase comments. Oh well, I will try again, but the short version.

The arrogance lies in claiming that the last 50 years have made us superior to all who came before us. Your (as yet unproved and therefore illogical) idea that something came from nothing is (according to your standards) just as unteachable as ID. So we start from…? Well, we start from the first pictures drawn on walls because anything before that is just conjecture, explainable by any number of theories.

You are the ones claiming proof to be the ultimate standard. So why doesn’t anyone offer any? That is a very loud silence.

Dating back to some of the earliest available writings, the thoery of ID has gone virtually unchanged, even among the different major world religions. So, with a theory so historical and almost universal, why is it not class worthy?

It seems you guys want to teach school in such a way as to pass on only your kosher answers to questions that are already defined. That is not my idea of education. I think we should teach about the process of human thought and where that has led us today. Children are then able to draw their own conclusions and grow into adults who have been convinced of their ability to reason. Having taught in the public school classroom (how many of you have done that, by the way?) it is all about time allocation. If something is not widely accepted or is not historic, then don’t give it much time. That doesn’t mean leave it out alltogether, just allot your time wisely. Much of that can even be done through projects and group work that make the student more active in their education and bring the class together as a whole.

Anyway, I’m still waiting on your proof, so let’s have the next comments do that and then you can get back to talking about me not having any proof.

3/18 12:26 - Shadrach says: I have not yet seen a theory of the beginning of life that seems any better or more prove-able than ID.

3/18 12:41pm
Albatross says:

I’d be more than happy to look at some of the peer-reviewed scientific research that has been done in the name of Intelligent Design. Do you have any?

You made the assertion that ID is the most provable theory you’ve seen, and then did a circular two-step to avoid providing that proof. Because your Genesis belongs to an old, and unchanging religion does not make it a universal, scientific argument. Sly and slippery, but not surprising. You claimed to have information that makes ID provable - provide it, and stop trying to turn the tables. You asked for people’s opinions on scientific theories on the origin, they were given. You’re floundering around, and it your own silence that is loud.

Re: Something from nothing:
All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made.

Ex Nihilo.

On his blog, (which receives little to no traffic or commentary) Shadrach says:

“…It is true that America had promising beginnings, but what have we done with them? We have let the spirit of the world rule even in the church.

Yes, Christians are seeking a theocracy. I’ll say that again for those who want to use it against me later: Christians are seeking a theocracy, but not unnaturally made. We want to woo, not force, the world to see the Truth in our lives and choose to follow. When they follow, they will be brought into the body of Christ, the Church. The Church should then rule in its own right making decisions as a court and setting a standard for life based on the Bible. This is only to be enforced inside the Church, Not Outside. As others see the Truth, it is our hope that they will be drawn to it. This is the situation of the Church until the Day of Christ’s Return…”

Here is a typical piece of work from a creationist “scientist” - the Institute for Creation Research - Henry Morris, PhD. In it Dr. Morris really puts his credentials to good use - it seems that ICR’s idea of research is simply to find fault with the scientific works of others. Take note of all the cherry-picked comments. The conclusion of Dr. Morris is most especially profound. After all his hard work of critiquing all theories apart from the Goddidit Theory, he is able to reach this awesome conclusion: “Regardless of the sophisticated mathematical apparatus leading the inflationary-universe cosmogonists to their remarkable statement of faith in the omnipotence of nothingness, there will continue to be a few realists who prefer the creationist alternative: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

Shadrach, you might be interested in this. The article is titled: “Evolution Ex Nihilo” and in it, Dr. Morris says, “For those who believe in God, creation ex nihilo is plausible and reasonable.” Why? “Creationists at least postulate an adequate Cause to produce the universe—that is, an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, self-existing, personal, Creator God.”

So, it appears the Ex Nihilo is acceptable depending on who is making the claim, and as long as there is an “adequate Cause” for origination.

http://www.icr.org/article/240/

“Yes, Christians are seeking a theocracy. I’ll say that again for those who want to use it against me later: Christians are seeking a theocracy, but not unnaturally made. We want to woo, not force, the world to see the Truth in our lives and choose to follow.”

What is a ‘naturally made’ theocracy?

And as far as ‘wooing’ instead of ‘forcing’, it seems to me the wooing days are over, hence the concerted attempts to force.

And what about those christians NOT seeking a theocracy, either natural or unnatural? Are they not real christians?

“And what about those christians NOT seeking a theocracy, either natural or unnatural? Are they not real christians?”

Rick, I would guess that the answer to your second question is “yes”. The RR seems to think that it alone has the power to determine who is or isn’t a Christian. Unfortunately, many American Christians are unaware of this and don’t realize what a danger the RR poses every American’s religious freedom.

Yes, Shadrach, Hello and welcome to AU. We know that fundamentalist, extremist, floor rolling, mouth foaming, tongue speaking, radical religious rightists want a theocracy. (Thanks Don - improvised, but proper attribution.) That’s why we’re here; that’s why we look for support to groups like AU. Thank you for sharing that revelation about who you really are on your blog that gets no traffic, instead of here, so we could really understand your position, and to realize that our attempts to talk peaceably with you are in vain.

Shadrach also says on his unattended blog: “I have been being disappointed. No wonder the left laughs at us. They have the bulk of the church cowering in their sanctuaries trying not to be offensive. Christians don’t know how to respond to their peers and don’t know how to live a life that proclaims Christ and Him crucified. It is our pastors’ fault. It is our peoples’ fault. We have stopped standing on the Bible and are now grasping for fingerholds. (I like rock climbing.) Satan has done his work well. First we doubt the Bible, then we are ashamed of some of the things it says. Next, we stop proclaiming it and teaching it as the ONLY truth. Finally, we admit that someone else’s opinion of truth is just as valid as ours.”

You would like to stand before our children and preach this sh*t??

Ex Nihilo??

Jax, precisely stated.
RickR - great questions, but I’m gathering that Shadrach only asks questions, he doesn’t answer them! He has the sole “truth.”

I’ve come to the same conclusion. Typical.

In light of the charge that I do not answer questions, here is a compiled list of questions asked (to me) in this thread. I will attempt to answer them.

This next post is a book, so sorry about the length. I decided to leave in the questions that I already answered just to show that I have actually answered some.

Again, if you don’t want to deal with reading this, just keep scrolling.

In light of the charge that I do not answer questions, here is a compiled list of questions asked (to me) in this thread. I will attempt to answer them.

Sorry that this is a book, I left in questions that were already answered.

Alan-”Since the belief in God is widespread, the belief in this very general form of “creationism” should be widespread also, including everyone from the Pope to those who believe Elvis is alive. It certenly does not have to be “taught”.
You would think that the various ID, Young Earth, Old Earth, etc. creationists would be happy with this situation and leave well-enough alone. But they ain’t!!! Why? Because Creationism isn’t about God’s creation - its about forcing dirt-simple, ignorant, protestant fundamentalism onto our school children through the power of the state.[sic]”

Actually, it is about not having our children indoctrinated with unprovable theories. We can all indoctrinate our kids all we want in the homes (I’m sure you’ll love that statement), but so far, science hasn’t disproved any of the Bible. So why should we let you indoctrinate our children by saying that all of your theories are correct to the exclusion of religious views.

Jax-”Shadrach, have you read Victor Stenger’s “God: The Failed Hypothesis”?”

No, but as I said, I’m checking into it.

Alan-”There was nothing. Then there was something! And the cause of this transition was neither nothing nor something..OK. Praise be to Allah. But what does this have to do with evolution? Or biology in general? Why would it come up in a science class?”

It would come up because it is the theory of how everything came into existence. Just teaching one side of things is not separating Church and State, it is excluding church. The fear that the RR has about this is mostly based in the fact that the Church is not taking on the responsibility of teaching its children. Thus, the Church wants to make sure it is not excluded in the current educational systems. Not promoting religious systems is constitutional; teaching that they are wrong and saying that equally unprovable theories are right is not.

Dave C-”What is wrong with believing in God with all the main tenets of Christian theology and also believing in evolution?”

Nothing, and we said that in the comments.

Albatross-”Can you point me to where it is that Darwin spent all this time and energy trying to exclude God?”

Darwin claimed he was an Agnostic, not an atheist. (see darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1452.1&viewtype=text&pageseq=322 p. 304) He actually helps your side substantially. In preparing his theory of evolution, he was an Anglican, but his studies led him to doubt God’s specific creation, especially as concerns the presence of evil. Now the Bible gives a full explanation of evil, but some do not want accept all men being condemned by the influence of one man’s actions.

Albatross-”I’d be more than happy to look at some of the peer-reviewed scientific research that has been done in the name of Intelligent Design. Do you have any?”

See below (same question)

Don Rettmann-”Like why bad things happen…”God has a purpose”. My question is, why didn’t God prevent the badness, or save the people’s lives, so they would see he had saved them, and turn to him?”

According to the Bible, it’s because God wants people to love Him and thus cannot force them to do what He wants. He tries to show Himself in such a way that people will believe in Him and follow, but not take away their free will.

Titania-”Shadrach, have you ever heard of Occam’s Razor?”

Yes, and we discussed all that.

Albatross-”How can you say that “God’s work” is NOT something from nothing?”

Dr. Morris is speaking of God as if He is not scientific; thus the impure statement of ex nihilo. The Bible teaches everything from God. God Himself is the starting point. That is not true ex nihilo.

Albatross-”If you have not compared the creationist “science” with empirical science, how then, have you reached your conclusions that it simply is more logical?? What is provable in their work, in your eyes, if you haven’t even explored the work? Where is the data to demonstrate the strengths of the ID theory?”

As I said, I did study it all a few years ago with some people very similar to you all and got very similar results. Ultimately, at that time, it came down to them believing one way and thinking that they would ultimately be proven right by scientific data (note the lack of current proof in that discussion and this) and me believing another way. Really, we both just had faith in our understandings, but they were loathe to use that word. The burden of proof is on you guys in this one, but I’ll see what I can do anyway.

Rick R-”Shadrach, a few questions: if creation stories should be taught alongside evolution out of fairness, then whose creation myths? Christian? Hindu? Native American? If Christian, which creation narrative? There are 2 in Genesis.
Should we teach young earth? Old earth? ID? Should we teach kids what science really is, which is gathering evidence for hypotheses from the natural world, and testing those hypotheses again and again? That science is about skepticism and the value of evidence? That science isn’t something you “believe in”?
And why is only evolution singled out as unfair in public school classes? Why not math? Should we also teach that some folks think 2+2=5 and let kids decide which math they will learn? After all, it’s only fair. Are you beginning to see why this fairness argument is thin at best, and potentially disastrous to our kids education at worst? Taken to it’s logical extreme, is it really a good idea?”

I gave my explanation of all of this.

Jax-”[ID] provides no evidence and no testable hypotheses. It is not science and has no place in a science classroom. What is so hard to understand about that?”

Allow me to give two definitions of science according to the American Heritage Dictionary (Dictionary.com): n. 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. A. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. B. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study. 4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

Here is the rub with religion, it is experiential, especially Christianity which claims to transform your life. Thus religion and its claims to truth are observable, but the truths themselves are not. Does this make those truths less real than the ones that ‘science’ cannot explain but theorizes anyway? No. So how should we view the relationship between the two? Let’s look at which has been more right about explaining the phenomena around us, more often, and for a longer period of time. I’ll let you tell me which one will win: Bible or science.

Albatross-”I’d be more than happy to look at some of the peer-reviewed scientific research that has been done in the name of Intelligent Design. Do you have any?”

Here, you have me. ID does indeed deal with weaknesses in other theories, pointing those gaps toward an intelligent origin. You, who have the burden of proof here, cannot fulfill it, but neither can I show ‘scientific’ data to show my case to be complete. All of our ‘evidence’ to the unlikelihood of a random creation event does not amount to what you would call ‘proof’ for our theory. However, as the National Academy of Sciences says, if it cannot be tested by experiment and does not generate new theories and hypotheses, then it isn’t science. So maybe that’s why you have all been so mute on the issue of genesis; you’re not dealing in science either. That’s where ID comes in again, it allows us to delve into what cannot be tested and still consider different hypotheses valid. We can look at likelihood and openly discuss it. But that’s not what we’re really dealing with here. The word ‘science’ is another way to shut out anything beyond man’s comprehension. It’s back to Titania’s, ‘it’s not real unless it’s observable.’ I don’t agree.

But, there you go. ID isn’t allowed into peer-reviewed journals and isn’t considered real ‘science.’

Rick R-”What is a ‘naturally made’ theocracy? And what about those christians NOT seeking a theocracy, either natural or unnatural? Are they not real christians?”

A naturally made theocracy is one coming about by the natural expansion of the Church. It differs from the theocracy accomplished through Islam in that it is a peaceful acceptance of a given set of beliefs as opposed to a violent imposition of those beliefs. All Christians believe this to be the case or they are not Christian. Basically, if you are saying that we are not heading toward a theocracy, you are denying that Jesus is coming back and that there is an ultimate judgment. You are also denying that God’s Kingdom will be established in place of this one. You cannot deny those things and be a Christian.

Hey Shad, since the publishing of your book is slow-going, I’ll add a few more questions to the list.

You’d like for publicly schooled children to hear alternatives not to evolution theory - we’re all in agreement that evolution is occurring as we post (yes?), but to hear alternatives to theories of abiogenesis. Is this correct?

From that, which is it you’d like publicly schooled children to hear? Creation as told in the Bible, the numerous other cultural creation stories that exist around the world, or the theory of ID? Are they all the same to you?

There’s an old saying, Shadrach, and it is very adequate for situations such as internet conversations - put up or shut up. When you don’t do that, you can make yourself look arrogant, holier-than-thou. Of course, when you admit publicly that you are “disappointed” with the notion of “having to admit that someone else’s opinion of truth is just as valid as ours,” also speaks loudly. Recognizing that yours is simply an opinion is a leap in the right direction, but overall your statement doesn’t express a willing attitude to share this glorious life in a tolerant and accepting way. Did I miss, the part about loving your neighbor as yourself…as long as he/she sees it the way you do?

Sorry for the misplaced italics.

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”- attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I love that quote, especially in the context of teaching ID creationism and pseudo-American history of the David Barton variety.

Sorry about the ’sort-of’triple’ post.

It wasn’t letting the comment go, which isn’t uncommon for our internet, so I hit the button a few times.

I apologize.

I, personally, would like students to hear about the weaknesses of ’scientific theory’ as related to the genesis of nonorganic and organic life. This is the most important part. The rest is just icing.

The icing would be teaching that these weaknesses are why ’scientists,’ philosophers, and some of the intelligentsia of every nation since the beginning of recorded history up to and including today have believed in an intelligent design.

Sharach says: “The icing would be teaching that these weaknesses are why ’scientists,’ philosophers, and some of the intelligentsia of every nation since the beginning of recorded history up to and including today have believed in an intelligent design.”

Ahhh. Resorting to the Goddidit Theory for that which you cannot explain. So, we’ve come full circle. Thanks for clearing that up. I am still interested in seeing the specific materials that you have perused which help you to reach the conclusion that ID is the most “provable” of all theories of abiogenesis. I will reiterate, weakness in one theory, does not strengthen yours, but that is precisely what you resorted to in your statement. “I cannot explain xyz (yet), therefore God did it.” If that makes you warm and comfy, great, but please stop trying to say it is a credible scientific alternative. There is nothing scientific about it.

Imagine if we had stopped exploring explanation for natural weather phenomena. We’d still be walking around teaching our children that thunder is the product of and angry god. Imagine if we had stopped trying to find preventive measures for horrible disease because we still accepted the cause as ‘God’s will for retribution.’

Shadrach, you had my hopes up that you were actually going to address questions asked of you. Placing the word scientists in quotation marks is a common tactic of creationists in their mocking attempt to diminish science, thinking this lends some sort of credibility to creation myths. BTW, which creation myth would you like publicly schooled children to hear? Yours?

Shadrach,
Since you’re already free to teach your own children any theories you like, why should it matter to you that other parent’s children should be taught the same ‘theories’ about creationism in public schools?
In fact, why should it bother you that they are taught about evolution in biology class?

“But, there you go. ID isn’t allowed into peer-reviewed journals and isn’t considered real ‘science.’”

That’s BS, Shadrach. ID DOESN’T DO ANY RESEARCH, PERIOD. THAT is why it is not considered ’science’.

“Here is the rub with religion, it is experiential, especially Christianity which claims to transform your life. Thus religion and its claims to truth are observable, but the truths themselves are not. Does this make those truths less real than the ones that ‘science’ cannot explain but theorizes anyway?”

Individual experiential “truths” are real only to the person who experiences them. There is no scientific way to prove that religion is actually responsible for transformation when there are so many other factors that may contribute.

“Let’s look at which has been more right about explaining the phenomena around us, more often, and for a longer period of time. I’ll let you tell me which one will win: Bible or science.”

A scientific theory’s validity is not based on the length of it has been held to be true. Scientific method demonstrates this. A theory can be replaced by a better theory. You’ll really need to be more specific about just which “phenomenon” you’d like to compare – the rising/setting of the sun, the phases of the moon, the seasons, eclipses, lightening, thunder, conception, disease/healing, etc.

I think the Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, can provide some more pertinent definitions relating to science than a dictionary - (ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/why-id-is-not-science.html):

“A scientific theory is supported by extensive research and repeated experimentation and observation in the natural world. Unlike a true scientific theory, the existence of an “intelligent” agent can not be tested, nor is it falsifiable.
…
The scientific method is limited to using evidence from the natural world to explain phenomena. It does not preclude the existence of God or other spiritual beliefs and only states that they are not part of science. Belief in a higher being is a personal, not a scientific, question.”

(emphasis mine)