Custom Search

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Darwinism proponent now simply avoids ID arguments?

David Rice III writes to say that on a recent WXXI radio program (September 20, 2006), Eugenie Scott, promoter of Darwinism to American school systems, seems to be playing the "religion" card.
All Scott talks about is the church and religion without bothering to define evolution coherently or non-equivically. She even said that Darwin's theory said that "change and improvement can come about through time". She talked about the Scopes Trial and the demographics of creationism. From the callers, to the host, to Genie herself, doubts about Darwin were presented as all about fundamentalism, religious motives, political motives and economic motives without bothering to check their own at the door. Amazing double standard.

He concludes
Scott used to be (in my opinion) a somewhat respectable foe. But she has not bothered to really engage in the arguments for ID and this radio appearance is one more example of that. The only time the words "intelligent design" leave Scott's mouth is at the 24:48 mark where she said "Actually before I mention intelligent design, I also had a thought regarding that last call...." and then it is never uttered there after - she DIDN"T address intelligent design. This schtick is just not going to work.

No, it is not going to work. How can it possibly work when major Darwinists spent last year on an "anti-God" campaign? The fact is, Darwinism has always been promoted as the creation story of materialist atheism. No spin aimed at foolish or disaffected clergy is going to change that, nor is Scott going to succeed in characterizing the inevitable blowback from traditional religions and non-materialist philosophies as a form of aggression.

Interestingly, I had morning coffee with a publisher the other day, and he gave me to understand that he did not understand how Scott could be attempting to spin Darwinism - in the wake of Dawkins' anti-God campaign - as something other than a promotional vehicle for atheism. I would say simply this: In the wake of the anti-God campaign, including the blasphemy challenge and the (anti) God movie, it is obvious that an atheistic agenda lurks behind the current public promotion of Darwinism. Whether things might have been otherwise is hardly the point. We must address what Darwinism has become now.
If you want to understand why the intelligent design controversy cannot go away, read By Design or by Chance?.

Labels: , ,

Who links to me?