Friday, March 14, 2014


Who Didn't Get the Memo?

Michael Zimmerman, founder and director of "The Clergy Letter Project," has a post up at HuffPo about "Intelligent Design's Final Days."

He refers to Texas Freedom Network's blog TFN Insider post concerning a March 14-15 conference at Faith Bible Church in The Woodlands north of Houston, about whether "advances in cosmology, biochemistry, paleontology, and genetics undermine essential Christian doctrines, or is there in fact compelling evidence for design in nature?

They mean that space aliens or time traveling designers support essential Christian doctrines?

This, of course, is nothing new. ID, from the beginning, has faced the conundrum of how to pretend that ID is scientific for constitutional purposes while, at the same time, frantically hand signaling the faithful that the "designer" is not only a god, but the "Christian God."

You can read Zimmerman's and the TFN's posts for yourselves. I am nowhere near as hopeful as the title of Zimmerman's post implies. Lying with a straight face is a required talent for ID "advocates." They will not be embarrassed, much less deterred, by a few cats out of the bag.

But what amused me (you know this blog is about what amuses me, right?) is the organizer's description of William ("Wild Bill") Dembski:
Dr. William Dembski is Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. He is also the Phillip E. Johnson Research Professor of Culture and Science at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he helps head its Institute of Scientific Apologetics.
"Scientific Apologetics"? Now really! Could there ever be a better two-word description of ID?

I'm sad that this meeting is only a couple of hours away from me and I can't go. I would have, just to ask Dembski to calculate the fSCI of anything and to ask Meyer why he lied in his book. I would have taken the papers.
I'm sad you can't go too. Much hilarity might have ensued.
Rather than "scientific apologetics" I think the right term for IDC would be 'scientish apologetics'.
I think the right term for IDC would be 'scientish apologetics'

Of course. But how could apologetics be anything but "scientish"?
They guy who invented the word "oxymoron" saw this one coming.
Now really! Could there ever be a better two-word description of ID?

'Complete bollocks' comes to mind but maybe that's a little too harsh.
Post a Comment

<< Home

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

. . . . .


How to Support Science Education