Friday, November 06, 2009


Say Amen!

The Undiscovery Institute has told us that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion; it's only interested in science. Let us then consider this report of William Dembski's visit to The Baptist College of Florida in Graceville, Florida:

After a time of musical praise and worship, Dembski took the stage and began a clear, concise analysis of the necessity for Intelligent Design studies. He highlighted the similarities and differences between Intelligent Design and Creation Theory and explained why there was a need for both and how science and religion go hand in hand. Dembski's investigative research and insightful lecture was met with appreciative applause as he concluded with prayer.

Quite apart from the trappings of a revival meeting, what similarities between ID, supposedly science, and "Creation Theory" could there be? And, in what cause would there be "a need for both" ... except evangelism?

with appreciative applause as he concluded with prayer.

It wasn't a religious prayer, it was a scientific prayer.
While it is true that the concept of ID as such is not really religious, it is easy to see why it is being pushed in the first instance. ID promoters are religious and they push ID for religious reasons - or is it even worse than that?

I was having a "debate" at uncommon descent that ended a couple of days ago. The topic was the existence of objective morality (very sciency to start off with) and I simply wanted someone - anyone - to provide some evidence for what this objective morality is (and I even granted them, for the sake of argument, the premise that there actually exists an objective morality).

The debate ended in what is not an unusual way at UD. A moderator stepped in and deleted my posts and declared victory. But here is the scary part. CLive Hayden (the moderator) wrote in the last post of that thread:

Morality is always the premise, not the conclusion, and if someone doesn’t see it, then no argument can bring someone to it. It is like trying to argue with someone who doesn’t understand and cannot be got to just “see” first principles in logic. This is ground level zero, and is someone will not begin there, you can’t bring them there.

So, not only can a moderator at the leading ID outlet claim - with a straight face - that his version of objective morality simply IS, he can also simultaneously claim that his opponents don't understand logic.

So to answer the question I asked in the first paragraph of this post: yes it is worse.

Link can be found at:
Post a Comment

<< Home

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

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education