quote:
The real questions are
1.) Why are evolutionists terrified of ID?
2.) Why can't they tackle the real ID instead of misportraying it?
The real ID? The idea that some unidentified entity did something unknown for an unspecified reason at an unspecified time to some unspecified organisms? And that all of this can be discerned by inferring "design" by various dubious means which no two proponents can agree upon?
There is no reason to misportray ID; it is entirely clear what it is. It is religious belief with enough of the serial numbers filed off to (hopefully) pass judicial scrutiny. It was clearly "designed" to replace creation "science" which did not pass judicial scrutiny.
After the Dover decision the main proponent of ID, the Discovery Institute, has lapsed into whining about how unfair science is and how mean those materialistic scientists are. Yeah, that'll prove ID all right!
Admit it; there is no curriculum for ID without religion. If ID were taught in the schools, and IDers got to select the curriculum, in 20 years most sciences would be gone and students would be forced to study religion in its place. And it would not be just any religion. It would be a particular fundamentalist style of religion. That's what ID is all about. That and making Nehemiah Scudder real.
No thanks. I'll pass on that future.
™ Version 4.2
