OMG (pun intended), the whining over ID is hurting my ears.
ID is not important because it purports to be science – what is worth noting is that something as simplistic as ID can sway the minds of the public.
Why is that significant? While evolutionary scientists and other pseudo-philosophers opine at the gullibility of the public, what they are missing is this – macro evolution is not science, and even the uneducated public sees this. ID is just the rumbling of increasing doubts in the silly evolutionary assumptions, now spreading to the edumacated.
Evolutionists who are unable to separate their science from their evolutionary assumptions and faith commitments are relegating themselves to the scrap heap of ideas because they are failing in being intellectually objective (at best), and at being intellectually honest to boot.
ID is only making tentative assertions, and asking good questions. However, the vitriolic, if not fearful response of the evolutionary faithful is a clear indication that they not only believe that science is being attacked by religion and superstition, but that it goes much deeper than their love for science. In truth, any threat to evolution threatens their religious assumptions (namely those of atheism). For the secular fundamentalist, there is no other approach to science, or reality.
Or as First Things put it
The champions of [the ID] movement have rendered a signal service in exposing the non-scientific philosophical dogmatism of many evolutionists.
God forbid that science might be consistent with (note, I did not say proves) a creationist view. To the evolutionist, it seems, every attempt to approach science from a deistic or Christian view is a "God in the gaps" approach. To claim such, however, is at best ignorance, and at worst, willful stupidity, misdirection, and malice. Theistic evolutionist Dr. Craig Rusbult has a nice discussion called God of the gaps: What does it mean? Should we say it? Here’s my final poke at the whining atheists, a nice quote from that article:
But simply saying "God of the gaps" is imprecise and confusing, it leads to false stereotyping because it lumps together different views instead of distinguishing between them, and it only attaches a label instead of clearly expressing a logical concern. It can cause confusion (when a reader wonders "what is the intended meaning?") and miscommunication (when a writer intends one meaning and a reader receives another) and irritation (by those who are being wrongfully stereotyped and having their views misrepresented). It isn’t intellectually useful or spiritually edifying, so we should trash the term.