[gobucks]

I know you like reading and posting stuff like this from this high brow mag read by low brow knuckleheads on the left.

Enjoy!

[DeweyCA]

When a proposition is empirically false, as both creationism and ID

I thought that their problem with ID was that it was supposedly not falsifiable. There is a huge difference between that and being "empirically false." This writer doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Rudder]

If, unlike the postmodern left, the ID movement can enlist mainstream conservatives in questioning science's capacity to produce objective truth, then it's by no means clear the effort won't succeed. In that case, it will end up threatening a whole lot more than just evolution.

I, and the other evolutionist-scientists here at FR, have been consistent in positing the view of this quoted paragraph for quite some time now---namely, that the ID "movement" could: (1.) undermine science and (2.) undermine conservatism (because of its association with ID as portrayed by the MSM.)

It seems to me that, for a variety of reasons, ID/creationists do not have regard for objective and empirical observations. Truth to them is merely a matter of who can shout the loudest and, as such, is purely political.

[curiosity]

Great article. I think it deserves and evo list ping. It really nails down the attack on the philosophy of science that underlies ID and demonstrates its resemblence to certain leftist attacks.

[fizziwig]

"science-rejecting creationists"

Here we go again, lumping ID in with creationists (i.e. those that take the bible literally).

You folks who dismiss ID as science rejecting are not very well informed. In fact, ID supporters assert that it is established science which is "science rejecting" when the issue of first causes (and evolution) is raised.

Please, lets keep this argument fair...

If you really want to know what ID is all about with respect to questioning the dogma of evolution read Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial." He is not a biblical literalist, though he is a Christian. They are certainly not mutually exclusive except to the ignorant.

And for very intelligent, thoughtful, and powerful, though not scientific, arguments regarding the existence of God and the truth of Christ, read GK Chesterton's works on the matter and C.S. Lewis too.

Or you could still argue from ignorance, emotion and ingrained prejudice...your call.