From an article in the Baptist Press, linked from the Uncommon Descent homepage:
"You have to understand, in the current academic climate, Intelligent Design is like leprosy or heresy in times past," [Dembski] said. "To be tagged as an ID supporter is to become an academic pariah, and this holds even at so-called Christian institutions that place a premium on respectability at the expense of truth and the offense of the Gospel."
Good job, Bill.
- Log in to post comments
Are you sure that this is not another
posted by once-on-the-web-always-on-the-web-Botnik?
"...the offense of the Gospel." Talk about a Freudian slip! When do we finally get to stop treating the IDers as sincere although stupid and/or deluded, and start calling the whole thing a bunko scheme?
Or maybe they're just hired thugs for the Christian dominionists?
I believe that today the correct phraseology is "become an academic piranha".
IDer admits theological bias. Film at 11.
Yes how dare a person not keep some fanatical boundary between science and theology!
How dare they combine multiple tools to create a balanced world view!
You'd never see anybody implying Darwinian theory having a place to shape theology(that is if you pretend Daniel Dennett doesn't exist.)
I don't mean to come off like a dick but if that's what you are criticizing then just let some stories go.
He has a point, people fear the very phrase intelligent design. With some institutions you might as well walk into a crowded room and scream "Look out he's got a gun!"
meh says, "people fear the very phrase intelligent design. With some institutions you might as well walk into a crowded room and scream 'Look out he's got a gun!' "
Were the institutions you're referring to American public schools? Because that's the only real issue, here. Nobody cares if Dembski and his gang sit in a 'think tank' in Seattle and generate nonsense until they go to their eternal reward. What this is about-- and ALL that it's about-- is whether they can subvert the United States Constitution by introducing religious instruction into public school science classes. If they hadn't pursued the Dover case, if they weren't pushing 'Explore Evolution' as a public-school text, believe me, nobody would care.
Dembski in particular seems to have more or less abandoned the "ID isn't a religious idea" angle. It's like they've finally internalised the fact they aren't going to get it into schools so they're just waging a hearts and minds fight for (what they portray as) religious science against atheistic science.
Um, meh? Question for you:
If "balanced" means placing a premium on the Gospels at the expense of good science, then wouldn't that be either a delusion or a lie?
How is this a good thing? And why should it be taught in schools as science?
"I don't mean to come off like a dick"
Maybe you didn't mean to, but you did.
Michael Behe admitted that Intelligent Design is religion in the profile he wrote Time Magazine of Richard Dawkins, and on The Colbert Report. "Film at 11" is an apt phrase.