Even Darwinists acknowledge "apparent design" in nature. Darwinists believe
it was created by Natural Selection. Those IDs who are not religious claim
they don't know how the design originated, but they doubt Natural Selection
had much to do with it. Kauffman dismisses the whole question of a designer
by declaring it is "order for free". (Wouldn't that be the same as "design
without a designer"?) Many who argue against ID argue they find the concept
unnecessary, and urge IDs to give them a reason design should be accepted as
a part of science. Why should IDs try to change anyone's mind who is
satisfied with the orthodox explanation? ID speaks to people who are not
satisfied with "random mutation and natural selection" as an explanation.
Most IDs are not trying to eliminate anyone from the debate; they are
arguing for inclusion of another view point. I've listened to all the
indignant charges that the Kansas school board decision was driven by
religious fundamentalists who want to impose religion upon school children.
Recently I've read some of the actual statements of people who were involved
in that decision. Here are excerpts from one:
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/5119REM.htm
"The case for design is compelling. If you think not, then look at the
polls. Is there anyone in this room today that actually believes that
life is the result of chance rather than design? Why is this discussion
missing from the standards?
"I think the discussion is missing because many have consciously or
unconsciously incorrectly labeled "design" as a "religion." By
incorrectly labeling design as religion, scientists who wish to promote
the other side of the argument need not contend with the competing
theory.
"This is a bootstrap argument that is a catch 22 if you follow it. I have
no problem letting people look for alternative explanations for the
origin of life. However, I do have a problem with them telling Katie and
JD (grand daughters) that their chance based theories are the only
objectively sound ones that may be considered.
"So in laying the ground rules for discussing this issue with my
grandchildren, what should guide you?
"* You should make sure that credible scientific evidence on both sides
of the issue is disclosed. Furthermore, you should require that the
disclosure include the scientific pros and cons of each side of the
debate.
"* You should also ask yourselves whether discussion on either side of
the question is being improperly suppressed."
John H. Calvert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 26 2000 - 18:17:19 EDT