bluefugue

I do think a Scalia-dominated Supreme Court, perhaps padded with another Bush nominee (he will try hard not to get Soutered again), could be sympathetic to ID overtures should a lynchpin case come before them.

Like you yeti, I don't expect Scalia's crowd to be consistent, as they abandoned their usual pro-state's-rights viewpoint in the Bush v. Gore case. I would not at all be surprised to see a different result in future years than the 1981 Arkansas case.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: IesusDomini ]</p>

theyeti

Actually, Wells is a Moonie, which means that he would have no reason to say, "Praise Jesus!" or anything to that effect. In fact, the Moonies believe that Jesus was a failure and that the Rev. Moon is the true messiah and will be placed at the head of a one-world theocracy, or something stupid like that. However, Wells does frequently write and speak to Christian audiences as if he were a Christian, telling them what they are and aren't be warranted in believing. For instance, there's <a href="http://news.christiansunite.com/religion/religion02357.shtml" target="_blank">this article</a> at christiansunite.com where Wells says:

Personally, I think it's a bit cheeky for a non-Christian to tell Christians what is and isn't reasonable for them to believe, but of course the article makes no mention as to his religious affiliation.

The point is, the courts will look at the motivation of the ID movement in deciding whether or not ID is a religious concept, as they did with Edwards. So they've already shot themselves in the foot on that issue. Of course if there were no religious motivation, would there be an ID movement?

theyeti

Albion

If ther wre no religious motivation, I assume there'd still be rumblings about ID but I doubt there'd be an ID movement. The whole point of the Discovery Institute's CRSC is to bring in some sort of post-materialist science and hence renew the whole culture. There's no way that science can be post-materialist without including a supernatural option of some sort.

theyeti

This is exactly right, but for them the important thing is not just some sort of "non-materialistic" science. It's got to be "theistic" science, and when they say theistic, they mean their version of theism. Afterall, how could a non-materialist science per se be used for cultural renewal? Furthermore, since the leading lights of ID have all told us that the designer could have been an apathetic space monster, ID isn't necessarily non-materialistic either. It's got to be God, but according to ID, we can't tell if it's God. When you get right down to the very core of the ID movement, it's primary arguments contradict it's stated reason for existing. It's Orwellian doublethink, plain and simple.

theyeti

Richiyaado

Yes, this is scary. As I understand it, the US Supremes usurped the authority of the Florida Supremes to rule on the voting recount. Yet, the Florida Supreme's authority to do so had already been established by a precedent set by the US Supremes. Is that accurate?

Whatever the case, both Scalia and Thomas strike me as unabashed political partisans whose opinions might just as well have been written by the Republican National Committee. To the extent that ID is presently and vigorously being folded into conservative ideology, I'd expect them to be highly sympathetic to it.

Xeluan

I started to read Behe and got as far as chapter 3 with some really bad quote mining. I think this chapter really showed the limitations of Behe's research. The constant snide attacks against ToE as well really started to annoy me.

Regarding quote mining, I've always wondered (I sorta can gues why he didn't) why Behe never actually bothered contacted Coyne, Margulius etc to clarify their alleged postion on evolution. I'm sure that they are not that unapproachable.

Xeluan

Albion

Right. Except that we all know as well as they do that the space aliens and time travellers are just window dressing. They'll be dropped as fast as naturalistic pathways to flagellar production if the IDists get their way. Space aliens and time travellers are as naturalistic as natural selection, and that isn't part of the ID agenda. It just makes it acceptable to the slightly less credulous school board members.

It'd be really interesting to see what would happen if they did manage to vanquish evolution and open science up to including "Goddidit." Somehow I don't see ICR and AIG sitting back quietly while ARN and the Discovery Institute take centre stage. They've already said that the "intellectual" version of ID is - gasp - unbiblical!!! Blood is going to be shed before that all pans out. It'd almost - almost - be worth being around to see it happen. At the very least it'd be an interesting topic for a sci-fi/horror novel.

Bill

Let us not forget the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000885" target="_blank">prior discussions we have had here</a> of <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/" target="_blank">Richard Wein's review of Dembski</a>, which, in my mind at least, remains the cannonical rebuttal.

== Bill