Thoughts in a Haystack

There is a Letter to the Editor in the Montgomery (Alabama) Advertiser that is all but biblical in the proportion of foolishness it packs into a small space. It comes in response to an article by James Evans, pastor of Auburn First Baptist Church, recommending the Clergy Letter Project and not only contradicts the experts in science but those who have, presumably, some expertise in theology.

But The Sensuous Curmudgeon has already gone over the letter in detail and there is no need for me to repeat that. I actually saw the letter early this morning and might have beat the Curmudgeon to it (as I'm learning, not an easy task) but I got interested in the fact that the letter writer, although he proclaims that "credible scientific minds are ... producing evidences where Intelligent Design must be considered by necessity," not only trotted out such standard ID fare as "irreducible complexity" and the Cambrian "explosion" but included this:

That, of course, makes no sense unless the writer is pushing young-Earth creationism ... which he neatly confirms at the end by asking Pastor Evans how, if you "eliminate the first 11 chapters of Genesis as fact, what basis does he use to justify salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ as factual?" Apparently the correct answer is to squeeze your eyes as tight shut as you can, jam your fingers knuckle deep in your ears and hum Rock of Ages as loud as you can.

But not long ago no lesser an ID light (and who could be lesser?) than Casey Luskin was chiding a local school board that it would amount to "confusing students [to include] discussion of intelligent design with material that promoted young earth creationism as fact." And the Discovery Institute has long protested that only young-Earth creationism is banned by the Supreme Court case of Edwards v. Aguillard and, therefore, ID is not.

On the other hand, we've known for a long time that IDeologists try to maintain a "big tent," as explained by Phillip Johnson:

But somewhere, in the back of my mind, I seem to remember some ID advocate saying he was an "agnostic" about the age of the Earth (I think in the bogus Kansas "hearings" by the then creationist-majority Board of Education).

While not quite as undirected as evolution, this may indicate just how contingent my posts here really are. In looking for a reference to the "agnostic," I found this article by William Dembski, where I noted the following ambiguity. Dembski makes this plea for "understanding":

But in what sense can you have "interdisciplinary" dialogue when you deny there are such things as "disciplines"? And, in what sense can you have dialogue when, as Dembski says: "I don't think the rules of science are inviolable."

In other words, to Dembski and the IDers, a "dialogue" consists of being able to call yourself and your beliefs whatever you want while saying "We don't need no steenkin' rules!"

And they wonder why they don't get no respect in academic circles ... or any other place that values even minimal honesty.
.