Comments on: Being a Treatise on the Pretense That the Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory Should Contravene the Divine Doctrine of Creation http://www.timberglund.com/blog/archives/565 See what large letters I use as I write to you in my own hand. Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:23:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: The Gnu http://www.timberglund.com/blog/archives/565#comment-533 Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.timberglund.com/blog/archives/565#comment-533 My take on the ND vs ID controversy has been affected by Dave Berlinski's article in Commentary last year where he adopts the position that the evidence is not decisive either way. He accepts the sources of criticism of staple Neo-Darwinism by ID theorists and proto-ID theorists but argues that there are still lines of evidence that are suprising on ID assumptions but not so on ND assumptions. It strikes me that what makes the ID movement seem necessary is the ideological grip of apologetic naturalism on the high road of culture and public educational policy. This required a necessary response and it is good that so many have jumped into the fray. But the problem is that the politicization by the ND apologists leads to the politicization of the ID apologists and this leads to continuously itirated bootstrapping of the debate. The ID theorists wind sounding overly dogmatic and obscuring the weaknesses in their own position, as listed by Berlinski who has published some papers in some ID books. Consequently, it seems that the policizing by both parties has interfered with the forthcomingness of the truth of the matter which in turn hurts both science and eductation. I have tried to adopt the policy of looking past the debate and letting science speak for itself. My take on the ND vs ID controversy has been affected by Dave Berlinski’s article in Commentary last year where he adopts the position that the evidence is not decisive either way. He accepts the sources of criticism of staple Neo-Darwinism by ID theorists and proto-ID theorists but argues that there are still lines of evidence that are suprising on ID assumptions but not so on ND assumptions.

It strikes me that what makes the ID movement seem necessary is the ideological grip of apologetic naturalism on the high road of culture and public educational policy. This required a necessary response and it is good that so many have jumped into the fray. But the problem is that the politicization by the ND apologists leads to the politicization of the ID apologists and this leads to continuously itirated bootstrapping of the debate. The ID theorists wind sounding overly dogmatic and obscuring the weaknesses in their own position, as listed by Berlinski who has published some papers in some ID books.

Consequently, it seems that the policizing by both parties has interfered with the forthcomingness of the truth of the matter which in turn hurts both science and eductation. I have tried to adopt the policy of looking past the debate and letting science speak for itself.

]]>