The American Spectator

But Intelligent Design fails the test, especially in the matter of making predictions subject to testing. Saying that organisms are so complex that there must be a Creator is not science because the statement is not amenable to experimentation.

Mankind’s ability to understand complexity is an open-ended process. There are more scientists alive today than in the whole history of the world combined, and progress is being made in understanding complex systems every day. Intelligent Designers seem to be throwing up their hands and saying “We can never understand this!” The whole idea reminds me of physicians of past ages who considered diseases to be punishments from God, right up until the time when Pasteur figured out germ theory.

As for your complaints about Intelligent Design getting equal time, I think you are flat out wrong. All ideas are not equally valid. To think along those lines is to embrace the mind-set of Victim Ideology. Will the TAS soon be running a series of articles praising the benefits of socialist reforms? Isn’t it mean of you not to do that? Shouldn’t you give the poor downtrodden socialist equal time in your publication? Yeah, right.

p>I have no doubt that there are people in the world who believe that the world is flat. But a sincere and passionate belief that the world is flat does not make it so, and even a fervent belief in the flatness does not obligate scientists to re-engage the flatlanders in a scientific debate. br> — Robert F. Casselberry /p>

I have been following the Intelligent Design debate for quite some time and I’ll admit that I have not seen the actual scientific data that supposedly supports it.

My understanding of it is this: We have found some contradictions to Darwin’s theory and also some areas that Darwinism cannot explain. The complex nature of life on this planet is too perfect to have come about by chance. The statistics don’t support it. Therefore it must be designed by a power greater than ourselves.

If that is an accurate portrayal, its NOT science. It is the basis for every religion the world has ever seen. “I don’t know the answer, therefore God’s hand must be involved.”

We don’t know everything. Science realizes and embraces that thought. Intelligent design is not worthy of teaching to impressionable young people.

If you want to discuss it in science journals and universities so be it. Don’t confuse young people with conjecture and bad science.

p>Darwinism does not disprove God and is the best working model we have come up with so far. Intelligent Design makes a conclusion without supporting evidence. br> — Joseph R. Davey