<< I second this. Why don't ID people make it clear exactly where they stand
issues like this? The standard view among many who oppose creationism is
ID is just a "front" for getting YEC into public schools (NOTE - This is NOT
necessarily what I believe, I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here!).
Eugenie Scott, for example, of the National Center for Science Education (an
organization which opposes the introduction of creationism into the public
schools) has written (http://www.ifas.org/fw/9409/creationism.html):
> In response to such legal decisions, creationism has evolved by avoiding
> word creationism. A current euphemism is intelligent design theory,
> in the creationist textbook Of Pandas and People. It comes as no surprise
> someone familiar with the arguments of the now-discredited scientific
> that intelligent design and abrupt appearance proofs are identical with
> scientific creationism. >>
Along these same lines, Univ. Texas philosopher Robert T. Pennock has a new
book out entitled "Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism"
(MIT Press, 1999). I only paged through the book while killing time in my
favorite bookstore, but it seems to take on ID head-to-head, and views it as
"the new creationism". Incidentally, this is the same Pennock who published
a short article in the September 1998 issue of Perspectives on Science and
And as long as I'm mentioning books, Steve Gould has a new one which expands
on his recent Natural History article on "non-overlapping magisteria". It's
entitled "Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life".
Anyone read either of these?
Karl V. Evans