Intelligent Design ruling in PA
Dec. 20th, 2005 03:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tagrynI note a certain amount of glee and celebration by some in the wake of the PA court ruling banning the presenting of "intelligent design" as a possible alternative to Darwinian evolution in high school science classes. Since the teaching of creationism has already been struck down in the courts, this was probably a logical extension of precedent. However, I don't see this as an issue that will ultimately be resolved in the courts - until the anti-ID side can come up with a simple, elegant explanation as to why ID is impossible/invalid, the debate will go on and on. Most evolutionist counters to ID I've run across tend to become exceedingly complex and intricate, which is great for those with the time and background to delve into all the nuances but is a losing approach when it comes to changing a non-specialist's mind.
I also have to say, as someone who isn't a True Believer in either strict creationism or strict evolution, that I've sensed an general hostility by many evolutionists to considering any possible alternatives and a bad tendency to broadly paint anyone who would even entertain the thought of ID as a stupid superstitious fundamentalist who should be dismissed out of hand. Do a search for comments on Michael J. Behe, one of the more popular ID proponents, and you'll see what I mean. For a group supposedly taking up the mantle of being "reality-based" and more scientifically grounded than their opponents, this kind of dogmatic, close-minded, - and dare I say, almost Inquisitional - reaction is extremely disappointing. It appears I'm not the only one who's noticed this, either.
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that taking such a hard-core stance on evolution is often a symptom of a more general position of antitheism by its partisans. That would explain much of their zeal in fighting any consideration of ID, since its hypothesis of an "intelligent agent" would be intolerable to any believer in antitheism.
I also have to say, as someone who isn't a True Believer in either strict creationism or strict evolution, that I've sensed an general hostility by many evolutionists to considering any possible alternatives and a bad tendency to broadly paint anyone who would even entertain the thought of ID as a stupid superstitious fundamentalist who should be dismissed out of hand. Do a search for comments on Michael J. Behe, one of the more popular ID proponents, and you'll see what I mean. For a group supposedly taking up the mantle of being "reality-based" and more scientifically grounded than their opponents, this kind of dogmatic, close-minded, - and dare I say, almost Inquisitional - reaction is extremely disappointing. It appears I'm not the only one who's noticed this, either.
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that taking such a hard-core stance on evolution is often a symptom of a more general position of antitheism by its partisans. That would explain much of their zeal in fighting any consideration of ID, since its hypothesis of an "intelligent agent" would be intolerable to any believer in antitheism.
