The American Spectator

AmSpecBlog

Re: More on ID

By J. Peter Freire on 11.20.05 @ 11:06AM

John, I understand your point, but the problem Darwinism has is natural selection. So long as scientists cling to the idea that natural selection is necessarily random, or that there is a missing link, Darwinism will be an incomplete theory, and in its own way, a genuflection to science's own God.

As the debate plays out, this happens:

Darwin Defender: Indeed, we have the upper hand! We shall explain the origins of life without actually explaining where that life came from!
ID Man: Hold it right there! Is that really possible? You could say that you can't explain it, but instead, you're going to say that it is explained, and that no intelligent designer is involved?
Darwin Defender: What are you, some kind of Bible-thumping zealot? Get out of my school system!
ID Man: But what about the absence of "missing links"? What was the original being from which all others evolved? Why must mutations be random rather than part of a greater "plan"?
Darwin Defender: Your nonsense has no claim on science!
ID Man: Fine, just answer my questions.
Darwin Defender: We haven't discovered the missing links yet, but we will. It was too early in pre-history for us to have a record of what the original being was. And the mutations and random nature of the world are simply algorithms too lengthy for humans to understand. Didn't you see the movie Pi?
ID Man: If that's what passes for science, then why shouldn't I be allowed to add my own explanation in a class?

And so on. Intelligent Design may not have all the answers, but it's also clear Darwinism doesn't. And George might have to correct me, but I think the real debate lies in the prohibition on including ID, not as an equal to Darwinism, but a possible explanation to phenomena Darwinism can't explain. My curiosity peaks at the thought of people saying, "You are repulsive. And your beliefs are nonsense." I'd rather have someone (cough John Tabin cough) explain it more clearly.

This is a pretty good discussion of various conservatives on their positions, some are completely unwilling to go out on a limb, others are glad to get their name out. But the ones who believe ID should be taught as a sidenote, are they committing a terrible error?  Â