Hannity & Colmes will be doing a report on ID tonight at 9 p.m. ET.
Here is my review of the program. H&C had 3 guests, Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. Richard Land, and Dr. Lawrence Krauss.
It began with Behe giving a definition of ID. Behe used the usual examples of Mt. Rushmore, cell as a molecular machine and the flagellum.
Colmes asked Behe why so few scientists support ID? Behe said that opponents dislike the metaphysical implication of ID. Colmes immediately jumps on this point interrupting Behe with the question who is the designer? Behe admits that ID does have metaphysical implications but so does the Big Bang. And for him a good candidate for ID would be God but IC does not go that far. Colmes pushes Behe asking if it is not God then who else? Behe gives the usual response of space alien or time traveler basically any intelligent source.
Next H&C had Land and Krauss on. Both Land and Krauss began with comments on the Dover decision. Krauss then began is ferocious attack on Behe. I am convinced that Krauss is unable to represent ID accurately if his life depended on it. He boldly declares that nothing about what Behe said is science. This is so ridiculous. Is he so lame that he thinks people would forget something they just saw 5 minutes ago? Behe just finished describing the complexity of a cell with specialized functions and signposts directing operations. He described the different parts of the flagellum. What isn’t science about a cell and flagellum Dr. Krauss? Maybe this is the reason why Americans are behind many other countries in science because Krauss teaches cells and flagella are not a part of science. Krauss also trotted out the usual Darwinian equivocation that ID is an argument from ignorance. Behe already addressed this earlier with Colmes that Darwinian science just doesn’t work that way and no Darwinian research has been able to demonstrate how this would work.
Rich Lowry asked Krauss isn’t it true that science can only tell us so much. It does tell us if there is a purpose or god. Krauss answer by saying yes, science does not say anything about God either way. This is a lie. The fact is that Krauss fully believe science say everything about God. He quotes Weinberg saying “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God. It just makes it possible to not believe in God.” IOW, God is irrelevant. Even if God exists, God has nothing to do with our existence so in all practicality Krauss’s form of science says that there is no God. If he were honest, he would admit that he uses science to deny God and justify his Atheism.
While Land was making some criticism of the Federal Judge in the Dover, Krauss jumps in asking if Land thinks the Judge was so incompetent then why did the Thomas More Law Center introduced this case? This is another clueless statement from Krauss. Who were the plaintiffs in the Dover case Dr. Krauss? Duh! Actually Rich Lowry did catch him on this lie and nails him on it. Krauss again accuses Behe of having no published papers. This is another lie or willful ignorance. There is at least (Behe and Snoke 2004). Krauss is also deliberately misleading in referring to ID not having published papers.
Finally in response to another one of Land’s comment, Krauss said that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. WHY NOT? Who is the designer for evolution? If Darwinists can ask who is the designer in ID (the source of the artifact). It is absolutely necessary for Darwinists to answer the same question. Where did the first living organism (the designer of all subsequence organism) come from? If Darwinians can assert ID is not science because we don’t identify the designer then neither is Darwinian evolution because it cannot identify the origin of the first life. Why the double standard? One set of scientific method for Darwinists and another for ID.
I thought the ID side could have been better defended. No one took Krauss to task for his misrepresentation of ID and lie about science. I wish ID theorists like Behe would stop using the Mt Rushmore example. It leaves an opening for Darwinists to attack with the designer argument. A much better example would be Stonehenge. There is no known designer for this artifact, yet no sane person would deny that it was designed.