This is the deist compromise most commonly held by thousands - possibly millions - of working scientists who want to reconcile science and faith.
If students deserve to weigh ID against natural selection, then why not also expose them to… 1. Because, their grand conceptual error is in believing that their incantation of Intelligent Design is the only alternative to Darwinian evolution.
By basing their offensive on core notions of fair play and completeness, ID promoters have employed a clever short-term tactic, but have incurred a long-term strategic liability. And this self-portrayal - as champions of open debate, standing up to stodgy authorities - has worked well for the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID). While scientists and their supporters try to fight back with judicious reasoning and mountains of evidence, a certain fraction of the population perceives only smug professors, fighting to protect their turf - authority figures trying to squelch brave underdogs before they can compete. And it has allowed them to steal a march. (In fairness, some religions helped to promote these concepts.) Perhaps they find it a tactically useful maneuver. Some of those promoting a fundamentalist- religious agenda now appeal to principles they once fiercely resisted. One has to appreciate not only irony, but an implied tribute to the scientific enlightenment, when we realize that openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth are now the main justifications set forward by those who still do not fully accept science. What do evolutionists have to fear? Are they so worried about competition and criticism that they must censor what bright students are allowed to hear? Let all sides present their evidence and students will decide for themselves! One might paraphrase the new position, that has been expressed by President Bush and many others, as follows: Hence, the New Creationists have adapted and learned to base their arguments upon these same principles. Indeed, they have been incorporated into the moral foundations held by average citizens, of all parties and creeds. These concepts proved successful in helping our civilization to thrive, not only in science, but markets, democracy and a myriad other modern processes. Proponents of Intelligent Design now appeal to … notions that are far more a part of the lexicon of science than religion, notably openness to criticism, fair play, and respect for the contingent nature of truth. What has changed is the armory of symbols and ideas being used.
Their target is the millions of onlookers and voters, for whom the battle is as emotional and symbolic as it ever was. At the level that they are fighting, none of that matters. ID promoters barely try to undermine evolution as a vast and sophisticated model of the world, supported by millions of tested and interlocking facts. True, they produce little or no evidence to support their own position. Instead, they invoke skepticism and cite alleged faulty evidence as reasons to teach students alternatives to evolution. Unlike the Creationists of 20 years ago, proponents of ID no longer refer to biblical passages. Intelligent Design (ID) pays tribute to its rival, by demanding to be recognized as a direct and “scientific” competitor with the Theory of Evolution. In what must be taken as sincere flattery, these tactics appear to acknowledge just how deeply the inner lessons of science have pervaded modern culture. A clue to both the recent success - and the eventual collapse - of “Intelligent Design” can be found in its name, and in the new tactics that are being used to support its incorporation into school curricula. Darwinism has taken shape, and especially the ways that this round differs from previous episodes. There is rich irony in how the present battle over Creationism v.