Friday, May 12, 2006

 

On Fathers and Bastards

.
There was a not-completely-puff piece on the doyen of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson, in The Sacramento Bee yesterday. One notable comment was from Michael Ruse:

"I think the whole [ID] position is socially and internationally dangerous, as well as wrong," Ruse said.

But Ruse said he and Johnson share a mutual respect after years of traveling in the same circles and debating publicly. He describes Johnson as friendly, intelligent and fond of stories, as well as the occasional drink.

"I do like the guy," he said, adding with a hearty laugh, "At another level, I don't trust him as far as I can see him."

But perhaps more typical of the article is this:

But many who read "Darwin on Trial" say the book made a "devastating case" against the widely held theory. Among them is Johnson's former colleague Michael Smith, also a retired Berkeley law professor.

"I would have thought the weight of the so-called scientific consensus would have buried any dissension," Smith said. "But it hasn't buried" the intelligent design movement.

Well, no, it hasn’t. But, then again, you’d also think the weight of the scientific consensus would have buried astrology by now, too. But pick up any newspaper in the United States and the overwhelming odds are that you will find an "In Your Stars" column somewhere inside. The persistence of astrology has much in common with the persistence of ID (as Michael Behe will tell you in his more candid moments under an oath to tell the whole truth). If persistence among those uneducated in science is what the ID crowd is aiming for, they are setting the bar way low.

Finally of note is this:

[Johnson’s] main disappointment is that the issue hasn't made more headway in the mainstream scientific community.

Johnson said his intent never was to use public school education as the forum for his ideas. In fact, he said he opposed the efforts by the "well-intentioned but foolish" school board in Dover, Pa., to require teachers to present intelligent design as a viable scientific theory.

Instead, he hoped to ignite a debate in universities and the higher echelon of scientific thinkers.

But Johnson said he takes comfort knowing he helped fuel the debate that has taken place so far. "Perhaps we've done as much as we can do in one generation."

"Do to" might be the more apt phrase and, as they say: "From his mouth to God’s ear . . . "
.

Comments: Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

. . . . .

Organizations

Links
How to Support Science Education
archives