INTELLIGENT DESIGN - A response to a commentor!

The following is a response to a comment at a post on Intelligent Design (ID) made earlier this week. My response contained "too many links", so Haloscan rejected it! I didn't have time to fix it and had too much invested to toss it ... so I decided to post it for ya'al!

Now I hope Fargus, my good young friend, doesn't think I'm singling him out here, because that is not what I mean to do.

It's just there are a few things I thought he should look into and it was important to preserve my work. Besides my blog's Board of Advisers voted 1 to 0 in favor ... so read on.

Fargus's comment was as follows:

I have no problem with ID in philosophical discussions, but as it's an untestable and unprovable hypothesis, it really has no place in a science classroom, in my opinion.

My response follows:

I believe a poll of the jury ... which is still out ... would say the same thing about the naturalist/Darwinist view.

I don't agree with natural selection and would rather not have it taught in the schools, but I'm not afraid of it either. And since our schools are irredeemably secular, I say render unto Caesar.

However, the case is being made for teaching ID by a number of non-religious, secular scientists. Antony Flew being the most widely recognized I believe.

And read what a recent Stanford bound high school grad writes "Are Darwinists Chicken?" in the Stanford Review. [HT: Pat Sullivan Blog] See also Pat's post the credentials of several of proponents of ID being taught in our schools along side evolution.

And then there are these two critical thinkers: Phillip Johnson, a law professor at Bolt Hall at UC Berkley (and his books on Darwin), and Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh Univ. (and his book "Darwin's Black Box). Both are internationally recognized contributors to the ID debates.

Then there is the ID section in the book by Geisler and Turik, which is exceptional apologetics.

And as far as teaching it along side of evolution I think the opinions of The President of the United States of America and the Minister of Education for Australia ought to carry a little weight.

The tide is turning on this issue and it is not in the direction of a religious worldview; rather it is turning toward a worldview which has a higher regard for educational choice; the way it is playing out it just happens to play into the hands of the spiritually inclined and motivated. But education is the real winner.