"Shocking" revelations

By PvM

The NCSE reports on some “shocking” developments in Texas

McLeroy accused of hostility to science education and religious tolerance

In a press release dated August 7, 2007, the Texas Freedom Network accused Don McLeroy, who recently was appointed as the new chair of the Texas state Board of Education, of harboring “a shocking hostility to both sound science education and religious tolerance.” TFN’s charge was based on the transcript of a 2005 talk McLeroy gave at Grace Bible Church in Bryan, Texas, on the debate over teaching evolution and “intelligent design.” “This recording makes clear the very real danger that Texas schoolchildren may soon be learning more about the religious beliefs of politicians than about sound science in their biology classes,” TFN President Kathy Miller said. “Even worse, it appears that Don McLeroy believes anyone who disagrees with him can’t be a true Christian.”

I wonder how the many Christians who disagree with McLeroy feel about this?

And for those who were wondering about the nature of Intelligent Design, they need not worry any further:

Following Phillip Johnson, in his talk McLeroy portrayed “intelligent design” as a “big tent,” explaining, “It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you’re a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it’s all in the tent of intelligent design.” He urged his listeners, biblical inerrantists like himself, “to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent. … just don’t waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues.” Yet he described theistic evolution – which is opposed to naturalism – as “a very poor option,” continuing, “no one in our group represents theistic evolution, and the big tent of intelligent design does not include theistic evolutionists. Because intelligent design is opposed to evolution. Theistic evolutionists embrace it.”

Nuff said… Fascinating how honest and straightforward ID proponents are when they speak to a ‘friendly’ audience. I wonder how they will behave when deposed in court proceedings :-)