Aug 012005
 

Dembski points out an article by Charles Krauthammer on ID, here.

I like Krauthammer’s political commentaries, if he would have only ended it there. By allying himself with the Darwinians against ID only shows that when his god is being attacked he must join the jihad.

In his article he makes no scientific challenges to ID and after all science is the reason for his criticism of ID, isn’t it? He fails to show even a cursory understanding of ID when he asked “on what scientific evidence?” . If he has even a cursory understanding of ID he would have known on what evidence. Has he not read any of Behe’s book, paper and articles? Has he not read any of Wells’s, Meyer’s, or Dembski’s books and papers? Has he not look at any of the number of internet websites that debate these topics? Is this just sloppy journalism or willful ignorance?

His analogy between the current ID vs. Darwinian debate with Fabricius vs. Kepler is even more puzzling. He raise Kepler as the standard of good science. I assume he means Kepler practiced observation and experimentation for his research. Well, this is the position of ID. Darwinian science is the one that demands obedience to their faith absent of any direct observation and experimentation for any genesis of forms.

His analogy becomes more ironic when you consider the basis of Kepler’s scientific work. “May God make it come to pass that my delightful speculation [The Mysterium Cosmographicum] have everywhere among reasonable men fully the effect which I strove to obtain in the publication; namely, that the belief in the creation of the world be fortified through this external support, that thought of the Creator be recognized in nature, and that his inexhaustible wisdom shine forth daily more brightly.” Kepler fully believes that his scientific work supports his faith in God. Would Krauthammer suggest that we stop teaching Kepler’s laws of motion in science classes?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.