Intelligent design 2.0? Huh?
|January 17, 2015||Posted by News under Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, News|
I’ve been on this beat a long time. Never heard the term “intelligent design 2.0″ from an ID theorist. That alone would make me suspicious.
If I never hear “correct” language from the natives, I wonder. So I did a lingo search.
So far as I can now see, the term arose during the media uproar around Eric Metaxas’ Christmas day article in the Wall Street Journal, which committed the one unforgivable sin:
He suggested that factual evidence might support theism – as opposed to hillbilly hollers for some deity somewhere in the back of beyond.
The typical religion prof can make an easy living dissing those hillbillies on behalf of the intercontinental elite.
A living he can’t make off the evidence (then he’d have to work, see?).
Evidence means getting serious. Hence the war on evidence for design. And why Metaxas is a big problem for those folks.
See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology). (What you are told is science sometimes is – but you pay for it anyway.)
Follow UD News at Twitter!