There’s a nice, pithy critique of Intelligent Desgn at the Ayn Rand Institute web site:
Its advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, “intelligent design” is inherently a quest for the supernatural. Only one “candidate for the role of designer” need apply. Dembski himself–even while trying to deny this implication–concedes that “if there is design in biology and cosmology, then that design could not be the work of an evolved intelligence.” It must, he admits, be that of a “transcendent intelligence” to whom he euphemistically refers as “the big G.”
The supposedly nonreligious theory of “intelligent design” is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science–to pretend, as one commentator put it, that “faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope.”
The insistence of “intelligent design” advocates that they are “agnostic regarding the source of design” is a bait-and-switch. They dangle out the groundless possibility of a “designer” who is susceptible of scientific study–in order to hide their real agenda of promoting faith in the supernatural. Their scientifically accessible “designer” is nothing more than a gateway god–metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.
Right to the point.
Funny you should be on this thread. See May 6 Hatewatch at Winds of Change, comment #5, which is mine: “Should it be such a surprise that in Kansas the schools are now being charged with teaching creationism as equally valid as evolution? The colleges are having to institute remedial courses for entering freshmen as it is.
Isotope dating is no longer credited, the earth is 6,000 years old, in this discipline.”
Forgive my quoting myself.
That’s an odd characterization. How can it be bait and switch, when it’s stated flat-out by one of it’s proponent, and even quoted by one of it’s opponents?
“Kansas- It’s Flat, Like the Earth.”
ID is bait-and-switch because it doesn’t explicitly name God as the “Intelligent Designer”. We call it “stealth creationism” because it’s essentially the old creationist line re-couched in language that’s facially non-religious in order to circumvent court decisions on the teaching of creationism.
We whack ID on a regular basis because it’s a threat to our education system that we don’t need on top of all the other problems it has from union teachers to single-mother-families.
don’t you mean, cite?
Actually I meant “web site” so I’ve corrected the post. Thanks.