He’s on very slippery ground when he says,

“Well, if you believe that science is reason and that reason begins with recognizing the existence of an immanent providence, then this is science. But, of course, it is not. This is faith disguised as s…

I’m also optimistic, though, for dead ideas eventually stay dead; they give up even gasping for air. The time will come.

I noticed on Panda’s Thumb (where I’ve been banned from commenting) that email addresses of commenters no longer appear. I guess they couldn’t stand me making personal email replies to the commenters either. It’s amazing the lengths the administrators of PT will go to in their quest to maintain a facade of being an open forum while deviously closing it off to determined, informed dissenters. Now I can’t even cherry-pick objective-appearing commenters for one-on-one dialogs about ID via email.

Also off topic – Panda’s Thumb appears to have scooped all the other blogs I read on this item:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc.....l#comments

it seems our president and CinC has driven a stake in the ground regarding ID in the classroom. I read one comment in that thread where the commenter said GW was one of, if not the single, most narrowly elected presidents in history. How ignorant. Bill Clinton won by a plurality (43%) of the popular vote when he ran against the elder Bush. Bush at least had an honest-to-God majority that voted for him. Had I not been banned I would have corrected that factual error. No one else bothered even though I’m sure many know it to be erroneous. Alas, I couldn’t even email the commenter to correct the misinformation he posted. Open-forum my ass. PT has become a repository for unchallenged misinformation.

One of things I most admire about Bill Dembski is his ability to partition science, philosophy, and religion. One might expect that of someone with advanced degrees in each subject but if intimacy with each is a requirement for objective partitioning there’s a thorny problem indeed. I suspect the inability to remain objective, on both sides of the ID dialog, is the root cause of the hostile polarization that ID engenders. What a pity. I expect subjectivity in non-scientists but I expect objectivity from scientists and, appallingly, I see very little objectivity in the science camp when it comes to ID.

The current issue of Time also includes the helpful description of Bill Frist as ‘anti choice’

In his article he makes no scientific challenges to ID and after all science is the reason for his criticism of ID, isn’t it? He fails to show even a cursory understanding of ID when he asked “on what scientific evidence?”. If he has even a cursory understanding of ID he would have known on what evidence. Has he not read any of Behe’s book, paper and articles? Has he not read any of Wells’s, Meyer’s, or Dembski’s books and papers? Has he not look at any of the number of internet websites that debate these topics? Is this just sloppy journalism or willful ignorance?

His analogy between the current ID vs. Darwinian debate with Fabricius vs. Kepler is even more puzzling. He raise Kepler as the standard of good science. I assume he means Kepler practiced observation and experimentation for his research. Well, this is the position of ID. Darwinian science is the one that demands obedience to their faith absent of any direct observation and experimentation for any genesis of forms.

His analogy becomes more ironic when you consider the basis of Kepler’s scientific work. “May God make it come to pass that my delightful speculation [The Mysterium Cosmographicum] have everywhere among reasonable men fully the effect which I strove to obtain in the publication; namely, that the belief in the creation of the world be fortified through this external support, that thought of the Creator be recognized in nature, and that his inexhaustible wisdom shine forth daily more brightly.” Kepler fully believes that his scientific work supports his faith in God. Would Krauthammer suggest that we stop teaching Kepler’s laws of motion in science classes?