Proponents of I.D., clustered around a Seattle think tank called the Discovery Institute, regard it as an overdue challenge to Darwinism's monopoly over scientific discourse. "To say, as Darwinians do, that everything has to be reduced to a chemical reaction is more ideology than science," asserts Discovery's John West. Opponents, led by the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education, regard I.D. as an assault on a basic principle of the Enlightenment, that science must explain nature through natural causes. "Intelligent design is predicated on a supernatural creator," says Vic Walczak, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging Dover's introduction of the concept into biology classes. "That's not science, it's religion."
Indeed. It's almost enough to make me buy a copy of Unintelligent Design for all of those whose religion and faith are so fragile it can't withstand the slightest bit of critical thinking.
Now Playing: Modest Mussorgsky Night on Bare Mountain
Excellent blog. This is how a pro makes a blog!!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words. My secrets are simple: I try to remember that "lose" and "loose" aren't interchangeable, and that slack-jawed drool tends to short out keyboards. Don't be a stranger!
ReplyDelete