With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Rewriting History & Twisting the Law Doesn’t Turn ID Into Creationism
Ironic
that Luskin accuses the NCSE of rewriting history and law when both clearly established the evolution of creationists via cdesign proponentsists to "design proponents". The link between the ignorance of its predecessors is continued in ID via the work of such 'luminaries' as Jonathan Wells who repeats much of the same flawed arguments against evolutionary theory.
Judge Jones was not fooled by the attempts to explain, after the fact, the obvious transition which coincided (design inference) with the Edwards ruling which ruled creationism to be unconstitutional. In an obvious attempt to shed any reference to God, delegating Him to an irrelevant role, ID has attempted to circumvent the rulings of law. And it has not worked, because ID is based on the same flawed arguments that doomed creationism (sudden appearance is still an essential component) and the argument is that ID cannot distinguish between the natural and the supernatural. However, real science can deal quite well with the natural but when it comes to the supernatural, design inferences have historically been unreliable.
Look at the recent findings related to the bacterial flagellum which have totally undermined Behe's argument for design. Has Behe admitted that his inference for design was flawed? Has he admitted the impact of such falsification on ID? Of course not. It's best not to inform ID supporters of these inconvenient facts of science.
If ID were all in favor of teaching the controversy, it seems reluctant to explain the controversy.
As to twisting the law, Luskin's attempts to dismiss Judge Jones's ruling are self evident even though Luskin, who is a lawyer himself, should know better. Hearing Casey use the term revisionism in his own posting is just the pinnacle of irony.
Never mind though, Luskin has managed to give away the playbook for the next season and I am sure the NCSE is looking forward to the next encounter. So far, they have quite a winning streak in supporting science.
- PvM
September 23, 2008 9:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.