Design Opponent tries to Stereotype ID as "Creationism"

Science Watch ^

[truthfinder9]

One can always tell when a journalist has endeavored little to study a scientific issue. Take Christopher Cadwell’s column “Creationism’s Sly Evolution” in the January 22/23 2005 edition of Financial Times.

He claims those who have studied biology can’t divorce it from evolution and that the laymen can’t judge scientific debates. Both of these claims are preposterous. One needs only to read the writings of the leading naturalist evangelists to see that evolution remains a fragmented theory despite their best efforts. The necessary finds that Darwin wrote would determine whether or not evolution was true remain unfulfilled. In fact the levels of complexity that he said would defeat his theory have been found.

Indeed, design and complexity is something everyone can do, even the lowly “layman.” If you found a computer in the woods, could you not tell it was designed and not some accidental creation? When you see the complex specified information (CSI) encoded in DNA, can you deny design when only intelligence can create CSI?

Cadwell also implies that contrary to the assertion of Darwinism opponents, establishing “atheism as a de facto state religion” is not really goal of naturalists. In reality, those leading the fight against intelligent design (ID) are some of academia’s most ardent atheists. So let’s not pretend their cause is about science. They want to continue to be able to rationalize science to their personal beliefs.

So when Caldwell writes that this issue is not on a scientific basis, but on an ideological one, he is right. The naturalists want to continue to replace good science with personal philosophy. ID states “Go ahead and discuss evolution. But stop pretending all scientists, including evolutionists, are in agreement.” Naturalists are intolerant of any discussion of competing theories or on debates that exist on their own theory.

ID wants the philosophy and rationalization of naturalism left out of the classroom as much as pseudoscientific forms of creationism. Intelligent design differs from past forms of creationism in that it draws from empirical science. It also forms models and makes predictions. The “scientific content” of ID far exceeds that of naturalism.

Naturalists are worried. They can no longer say the opposition is antiscience as design marshals mounting empirical evidence. They no longer can point to the other side and say, “They’re only religious fanatics” as their own fundamentalism is revealed.

By centering the debate on science standards, design proponents have exposed these fallacies. Good science demands we follow evidence where it leads, not that we tell it what to conclude.

[Servant of the 9]

Science is the study of what happens when God does not intervene.
If God intervenes, it is Theology.

Intelligent Design might be true, but it can never be science.

So9

[Oztrich Boy]

Evolution Opponent tries to Stereotype Natural Selection as "Atheism"

[sgent]

Yea but evolution scientists are generally made up of christians and other theists -- including Darwin.

ID proponents are made up of the same people who were are creationists until the surpreme court finally said it couldn't be taught in schools. Same people, same goal, the words have changed.