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
