The most striking removal, I thought, was not the skepticism but the "seeking natural explanations." Maybe that was too obvious to deserve comment, but I think that's the real sticking point for ID, not skepticism.
Though the Kansas Board of Education may dislike the sound of "a skeptical perspective," the ID gang (Dembski, Behe, Meyer et al) are comfortable with it -- one of their strongest rhetorical points is that they're merely applying a skeptical eye to cherished Darwinian dogmas. And though many things could be said about the weakness of their arguments, I do not see any sign that they fear criticism or a spirit of skepticism.
They organize conferences and debates, inviting challenge from the best and brightest. They doggedly respond to their critics, though their basic argument hasn't grown much and is showing clear signs of wear. They believe that the normal skeptical and empirical standards of science have (on the question of the origin of life) brought us to an impasse where extra-natural intelligent intervention is the best, perhaps the only available explanation. By taking skepticism out of the science definition, the Kansas School Board has unnecessarily and perhaps unwittingly thrown out one of the few strengths of the current ID movement.
Though I think it's interesting to consider broader political motivations, I think the persistent unpopularity of Darwin among conservative Christians (who like their skepticism selective) is sufficient explanation for how this keeps getting on the political agenda.
With kenjari, I wonder where openness to supernatural mechanisms would lead in applied science. Surely the evidence about the link between prayer and health would justify hospitals retaining a divine intercession team to offer prayer services for all patients? Doctors might even be sued for malpractice if they did not pray for their patients -- after all, it's withholding an often effective form of therapy.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
havenstone.livejournal.com at 01:02pm on 10/11/2005![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Though the Kansas Board of Education may dislike the sound of "a skeptical perspective," the ID gang (Dembski, Behe, Meyer et al) are comfortable with it -- one of their strongest rhetorical points is that they're merely applying a skeptical eye to cherished Darwinian dogmas. And though many things could be said about the weakness of their arguments, I do not see any sign that they fear criticism or a spirit of skepticism.
They organize conferences and debates, inviting challenge from the best and brightest. They doggedly respond to their critics, though their basic argument hasn't grown much and is showing clear signs of wear. They believe that the normal skeptical and empirical standards of science have (on the question of the origin of life) brought us to an impasse where extra-natural intelligent intervention is the best, perhaps the only available explanation. By taking skepticism out of the science definition, the Kansas School Board has unnecessarily and perhaps unwittingly thrown out one of the few strengths of the current ID movement.
Though I think it's interesting to consider broader political motivations, I think the persistent unpopularity of Darwin among conservative Christians (who like their skepticism selective) is sufficient explanation for how this keeps getting on the political agenda.
With kenjari, I wonder where openness to supernatural mechanisms would lead in applied science. Surely the evidence about the link between prayer and health would justify hospitals retaining a divine intercession team to offer prayer services for all patients? Doctors might even be sued for malpractice if they did not pray for their patients -- after all, it's withholding an often effective form of therapy.