Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
So, too, has the creation science argument evolved.
My guess is that the argument will evolve further from "equal time for
intelligent design and evolution" to "equal time for and against
evolution" and thus avoid religious issues. The idea of irreducible
complexity (intelligent design is so pre-Dover...) is being used to
argue that the process of evolution, as it is currently understood, is
statistically unlikely to result in many of the organisms we currently
observe. This will allow ID-proponents (IC-proponents) to avoid saying
that a "better" explanation is intelligent design. Though that may
seem, to many people, a logical conclusion to make, it is not required
(just a "feature", so to speak).
I am not saying that that is a valid argument.
Rather, I am saying, as I think Bob is saying, that repeating the
argument that such an idea is hogwash (though it might be) or that it is
just a plan to get religion into the schools (though it might be) is not
going to sway a significant number of non-scientists. And, saying
"evolution is fact and that is all there is to it" will only reinforce
the notion that scientists are hiding something.
What would you think if I told you something was too hard to explain --
just trust that I was right? Or that I was tired of repeating the same
arguments?