[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Marsha]
If it were Goddess rather than God under consideration there would be no
discussion.  The concept would have been ridiculed and the religion destroyed
centuries ago.

[Arlo]
What do you mean "would have been", I'd say "had been". But this just
underscores the two-faced agenda of the "intelligent design" crowd. I have
argued several times in our local school district for a "comparative mythology"
course. Each time, and I mean _each_ time, the suggestion is squelched by
_Christians_ who would hear NOTHING about any _other_ "God" mentioned in
school. It has been made clear to me, under no uncertain terms, that any course
that _lowers_ Christianity to a comparable "myth" with other world mythologies
would be rejected outright. These are the same people who argue the next day
for "intelligent design". Now do you _really_ think these people want ID to be
a metaphor? Do you really think they want the Tao taught in schools? Or the
Buddha? Or the Norse account of creation? Or Goddess mythology?

The day you can stand up in school and say "Christianity is a useful metaphor to
understand the human condition, and like other world metaphors which we will
examine as situated cultural analogies on par with the Occidental mythologies,
is useful only when one remembers 'all this is just an analogy', and one
analogy among many, all of which speak to parts of the human experience equally
and with valid voice. Buddha, Christ, Kuan Yin, White Buffalo Calf Woman (two
male, two female) are metaphors. Let's explore them.", I'll drop my
condemnation of the theist/ID crowd and support their cause.

I truly believe Ian means well, and likely could indeed make a cogent argument
for "intelligent design" as an "anthropological metaphor" for Quality. But this
is not what the ID crowd wants, like others on this board, they want complexity
and diversity and beauty to be "proof" of a "God"... and from there its a short
jaunt (as Mark implies, if I read him correctly) to "my God". Would it be that
the ID crowd were interested in metaphor and art and analogy. Sadly, they are
interested in literal, theistic dogma to replace "science". That is the agenda.

So I am cautious in between a crowd that sees "intelligent design" as a means to
bring literal Christianity into our schools as a plausible and equal
alternative to "reason", and a philosophy discussion group that uses
"intelligent design" as an "anthropological metaphor" to further our
understanding of the cosmos.