Replies

You are probably going to refer people to the court case again. Well, anyone who reads the judges decision in the court case needs to also read the law review article that several of the Discovery Institute fellows wrote absolutely shredding the judges ruling. His decision is so full of holes that it resembles swiss cheese.

Any court decision or scientific theory that you find yourself in opposition to is “full of holes”. That is all I hear, “full of holes”. I begin to think the same reflexive argument without substantiation is “full of holes”.

You are a thoughtful person and well informed about ID. I will not be referring to the court case again, because very few proponents of ID on this site took the time to read it anyway. This is my last personal reply on the subject.

As to the Discovery Institute. They had their chance in court, and according to the transcript, blew it badly. Respectfully, an article by the loser in a lawsuit is not produced under oath and does not follow any rules of evidence. If you read Kitzmiller, then you know that a finding of the court was that the defendants and witnesses were dishonest. I don't know why I would believe them now.

I have spent three days talking to proponents of ID. I have discovered that with the exception of you and a couple of others, they:

1. Don't understand ID and the ID Movement.
2. Actually undermine ID by explicitly stating it is about God
3. Have no clue as to what evolution theory is or what the evidence is for it
4. Have no interest in learning what evolution theory is or what the evidence is for it
5. Don't know or care to learn what the scientific method is and what it has meant for mankind

To paraphrase your summary of ID for me, ID is not so much a positive theory of the origins of life, but a system for critiquing Darwinism by suggesting that complex things require a designer. It does not address any aspect of what the "designer' might be. Your response to me was kind and informed. I have researched the ID statements on the internet and your description is consistent with theirs. It explains the problem, and answers Ben Steins point in "Expelled". There is no scientific evidence FOR ID, and no one is looking for it, least of all its own proponents. The scientific establishment is right to limit teaching of ID on scientific grounds regardless of legal issues. ID is an interesting, but unsupported, assertion.

This is not to say that ID should not be mentioned in schools, but it should be identified for what it is, again an interesting but unsupported suggestion, not a competing theory to Darwinism.

Thanks for the chat :)

His decision is so full of holes that it resembles swiss cheese.

Then they should have no trouble getting it overturned on appeal. They are appealing, aren't they?