Science - Intelligent Design In The Public Eye
There has been a huge amount of talk about Intelligent Design in the news and blogs over the last week. And of course, the false labelling and twisting of words by ID opponents is rife
In Australia, the Melbourne Age reports that Campus Crusade for Christ Australia, is planning on distributing a Pro-ID DVD,Unlocking the Mystery of Life, to Australian Schools. The Age equates ID with Creation (It isn't) and a scientist they quote errornously equates ID with a god of the gaps argument from ignorance.
ID The Future, responding to complaints about not allow comments on their blog, has a guest post by an Anti-IDer. Either this is a satirical post or it seems the bloggers at ID the Future are displaying Rovian genius in allow a fanatical, somewhat unhinged opponent a forum. The post does a fantastic job of putting together so many of the raving darwinist talking points that it highlights just how lame these points are. It has to be satire.
My favorite line from this 'mad' scientist is "As for all of those doctors who doubt Darwinism, well they don't understand biology. That may seem counterintuitive, but that only proves it's true. I am only going to say this 1 million more times little children: Darwinism is the cornerstone of modern biology." Sure ...evolution is the 'cornerstone' of modern biology, but it doesn't seem necessary for doctors to think so. More, the fact that they disagree proves the point???
Read the whole thing.
Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts has a few good posts. Mike highlights the bias against hiring a pro-ID researcher in academia. Curiously, many of his questionaire respondants deny any such hiring rationale could exist and instead such thoughts are just conspiracy paranoia. Yet the other half of respondents quite clearly state that would discriminate against hiring a pro-ID person.
Mike also talks about the labelling of ID as creationists that is prevalent, as well as Michael Ruse's attempts to do the same.
William Dembski responds to a Steven Pinker article in Time, highlighting many of the articles shortcomings. Steven's article contains a very common but curious meme. That is, the necessity of scientists trying to explain , even though something for all intents and purposes looks designed, why it isn't designed. It almost implies they can detect design.
ARN is discussing the recently approved Kansas Science Standards, which advocate being able to question darwinism. Including replacing a philosophically naturalistic definition of science to a less presumptive one.
For more reading, Wittingshire also has a good roundup of ID related posts.