Ron Schooler writes:
> This reply (on a listserve of high school history teachers) to ID apologists
> on the Kansas school decision may be of interest to people on the ASA list
> so I forward it to you. One of the arguments I read recently in Christianity
> Today on the subject would lead a person to believe that ID is in the
> mainstream of science making significant inroads in countering Darwinism.
> Who is right?
ID is not mainstream science and I expect that it never will be. In my
estimation it is far
closer to being "folk science," which can be defined to be a set of beliefs
about the natural (or creaturely) world--beliefs whose primary function is
to provide comfort and
reassurance that another set of worldview beliefs (already in place) remain
tenable in spite of substantial scientific criticism.
The crusaders for ID are correct to point out that the preachers of
evolutionary naturalism (as a comprehensive worldview) need to be answered.
ID's answer is to attack the scientific concept of evolution and replace it
with a theory of extra-natural assembly. I consider this cure to be no
better than the disease. The problem is not with current scientific
theorizing, it is with the scientism and leaps of illogic that propagandists
like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett spit out in the name of science.
Howard Van Till
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 07 2000 - 13:48:24 EDT