Andrew:

Robert McHenry has a nice piece about I.D. on Tech Central Station:

Sample:

“Then there is the simple fact that the ‘theory’ of ID is no theory at all,

not in the sense that the word is used in science. It is not based on the

best available evidence; it enables no predictions; and it is thus not

testable. It is, at best, a paltry substitute myth that incorporates some of

what actual science has learned or theorized but spurns not only scientific

rigor but any intention to perform science. It is not, as claimed, a

legitimate criticism of a scientific theory but a criticism of having such a

theory at all. No less than the Creation Scientists, and no less than dear

Bishop Wilberforce in 1860, though far less forthrightly, the proponents of

ID wish to draw an arbitrary line and use the force of the state to declare

that science shall not cross it.”

NB to readers: If you want to respond to the piece, please respond to the

feedback forum provided by TCS at the bottom of the article, not to me.

I have given up reading emails about I.D. Same applies, btw, to emails

about flying saucers, Martian canals, the hollow earth, Atlantis, telepathy,

dianetics, unicorns, phrenology, astrology, orgonomy, alien abductions,

Bridey Murphy, the location of Noah’s ark, the fate of the Marie Celeste’s

crew, and whether or not the bishops of the Church of England should open

Joanna Southcott’s box. I do not wish to know any more than I currently

know about any of these topics. If you believe in one, many, or all of

them, I’m fine with it, and wish you joy of your belief — just don’t try to

enlist me. And please don’t try to dump any of this stuff into my kids’

school science curriculum.