ID is not absurd, unless, of course, thinking is absurd
From Raymond Bergner at Academia:
Let me say from the outset that this is not an essay arguing for intelligent design. Rather, it is a protest against a certain attitude. Everywhere I turn today, I hear voices, with varying degrees of smugness and contempt, telling me that intelligent design — the position that there is some ordering intelligence behind the whole cosmic shooting match — is straightforwardly ridiculous. “No intelligent person believes such a thing.” ” How unscientific!c ” “It’s always a cover for a religiously based, evolution-denying creationism, trying to sneak in the back door in the guise of science.” Highly visible, scientifically informed public intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris pop up everywhere, telling us that, if any proposition about the origins or design of nature is unsupported ‘or unsupportable( by scientific evidence, that proposition is ipso facto without any merit or legitimacy whatsoever. Since intelligent design fails this requirement, they assert, it is unworthy of our entertaining it even as a possibility, much less a belief. I do not want to argue today that intelligent design is true. I don’t know if it’s true. I also do not wish to argue that it is a scientific position. More.
Aw, come out of the closet, prof.
ID is only absurd to tax burdens retailing stale garbage at universities, forbidding students to think. But almost the only resource the human race has over cockroaches is that we can think. Of course the universe shows evidence of design. Science celeb status has never changed that. What? You thought science celeb status could change that?
See also: How naturalism rots science from the head down
Don’t expect a quick end to the war on free speech The momentum of the campaign will be hard to stop