Replies

ID can't be taught, he explains, because most scientists believe that "normal standards of tolerance and academic freedom should not apply in the case of ID."

Is it just me? I'll be frank with you: I'm an evangelist fool. But I'm not a foolish evangelist. No, the reason it can't be taught is that it is fallacious reasoning; ad ignorantiam.

Formally:

All irreducibly complex systems are dependent upon all of their components.
No irreducibly complex system can function without all their components.
No natural origin for any irreducible system is conceivable.
-----------------------
All irreducible systems were created according to design as they presently exist.

This is an argument from ignorance. An important aspect of the ad ignorantiam argument is establishing the burden of proof. All logic follows from presuppositions (or axiomatic statements). These presuppositions are not provable in and of themselves but are assumed to be true.

Given that the premises are true, then a valid argument is one that necessarily follows, and that it is impossible for the conclusion to be false given the premises A sound argument is one in which the forgoing is true and where the premises are indeed true.

"Unlike most of my colleagues, however, I don't see ID as a threat to biology, public education or the ideals of the republic. To the contrary, what worries me more is the way that many of my colleagues have responded to the challenge." He describes the "modern academy" as "a tedious intellectual monoculture where conformity and not contention is the norm." Turner explains that the "[r]eflexive hostility to ID is largely cut from that cloth: some ID critics are not so much worried about a hurtful climate as they are about a climate in which people are free to disagree with them."

Argumentum ad Populim?

Turner explains, quite accurately, that ID remains popular not because of some vast conspiracy or religious fanaticism, but because it deals with an evidentiary fact that resonates with many people, and Darwinian scientists do not respond to ID's arguments effectively:

Wrong. The most inductive reason would be that critical thinking skills aren't taught.

[I]ntelligent design … is one of multiple emerging critiques of materialism in science and evolution. Unfortunately, many scientists fail to see this, preferring the gross caricature that ID is simply "stealth creationism." But this strategy fails to meet the challenge. Rather than simply lament that so many people take ID seriously, scientists would do better to ask why so many take it seriously. The answer would be hard for us to bear: ID is not popular because the stupid or ignorant like it, but because neo-Darwinism's principled banishment of purpose seems less defensible each passing day. - (J. Scott Turner, Signs of Design, The Christian Century, June 12, 2007.)

I don't know 'bout you: I can smell a "quote mine" from a parsec away.

Even so I personally dismiss "evolution" as fantasy, ID is positively illogical lunacy. Nowhere can it be found in the Scripture that I believe to be the Word of God advocating that I believe nonsense; illogic being just that.