Monday, December 05, 2005


... someone should stand and pronounce the euology for Intelligent Design. Darn it! I have to, I can't resist it! I must use an overused parody!
As Mark Twain said in 1897, "The report of ID's death was an exaggeration."
In a piece in their "Week in Review" section, the NYT says, Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker. But when you read on it seems to be a well written and fairly unbiased report on the current status of the "War of the Worldviews"!
Behind the headlines ... intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies.
Indeed, that is true. But a fair reading of the history of Darwinism shows the same roller-coaster ride in its ascendency. Difficulties in the journey never stop serious travelers. Remember, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." (Darn it! There I go again.)
Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
How can they, when arbitrary and artificial barriers prevent them? However, this presents a problem ...
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.

"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.

"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. [...]

While intelligent design has hit obstacles among scientists, it has also failed to find a warm embrace at many evangelical Christian colleges.
I understand this. Lacking the endowments of major universities and avoiding the entanglements of government funding, religious schools can't just start a program any old time a hot idea is presented.

Even more important is the need to remember that ID is not and will not be a biblical theory. Creation is the biblical response to the question of origins ... none other!

The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is "advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view." But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.
Thus the lie is exoposed. Baylor, once aligned with Texas Southern Baptists, while "advancing the frontiers of knowledge" severed ties with their SBC supporters once the particular "Christian worldview" they were cultivating began to be scrutinized. Claiming academic freedom, Baylor shut the door on any debate concerning their apparent lean to the left.

The people who had paid the bills at the school were told to go away and mind their own business.

Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: "I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I'm a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn't belong in science class."

Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. "But they are, and everybody knows they are," Mr. Davis said. "I just think we ought to quit playing games. It's a religious worldview that's being advanced."
I advocate ID, and I claim I'm not talking about God, but rather observable natural evidence, which conveniently summarizes under the ID nomencalture, and which should be taught in the schools along side natural theories, whether in the science class or not!
John G. West, a political scientist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the main organization supporting intelligent design, said the skepticism and outright antagonism are evidence that the scientific "fundamentalists" are threatened by its arguments.

"This is natural anytime you have a new controversial idea," Mr. West said. "The first stage is people ignore you. Then, when they can't ignore you, comes the hysteria. Then the idea that was so radical becomes accepted. I'd say we're in the hysteria phase."
As Dennis Prager often says (my paraphrase), "The people on the left sound hysterical not reasonable." I agree. Besides if they're right they should be able to prove it while "advancing the frontiers of knowledge."

Krauthammer on ID
Vatican on ID
Benedict XVI on ID
Intellect and ID
More - CRIB Google

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;

No comments:

Post a Comment