The Post‘s other erstwhile conservative, the august Charles Krauthammer, takes his shots at intelligent design today. While a healthy, honest debate on this subject is warranted and even welcome, Krauthammer and his fellow vituperative ID critics aren’t interested. He trots out tired and unjustified attacks on ID: “warmed-over creationism,” that it’s “not science,” “as science it is a fraud.”
The standard for a scientifically defensible theory, Krauthammer writes, is
that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution — or behind the motion of the tides or the “strong force” that holds the atom together?
In other words, Krauthammer doesn’t bother directly to address ID, but rather his caricature of it. ID demands the scientific evidence for evolution between species and, finding little or none, posits the more reasonable theory. Occam would be proud.
The real kicker here is that Krauthammer doesn’t hold evolution to the same standard as ID. As a scientific theory, evolution should not only be disprovable, but also repeatable, with a more complete fossil record between these jumps in species. Sadly, Krauthammer has bought evolution as a scientific theory, hook, line, and sinker, without bothering to examine it.