Dionne, the author of the infamous slander of evangelicals as being poor, ignorant, and easily lead, when, as a group, they have above average incomes and educational levels, and are extremely fractious (why do you think there are so many denominations? Otherwise, they would just all be Baptists or something), seems to have learned a thing or two. Good piece. All that is necessary, in respect of evolution, is to acknowledge that science tries to explain things purely by natural causes, and assumes that difficulties will be resolved in the long run. "Intelligent design" does not fit into the explanatory model of science, and is really philosophy, from that standpoint.
As I tried to explain awhile back, there is a big difference between questioning the adequacy of this or that explanation of phenomena, and questioning the adequacy of the type of mechanistic causality punctuated by randomness that science offers. As long as science insists on confining itself to that sort of explanation, evolution must be true, because it is the only thing that fits into the framework. What Intelligent Design is really challenging is the adequacy of science to explain phenomena. Since no serious philosopher thinks that science has a patent on the Truth, it is not startling to admit that it may not come up with a resolution to dilemmas, and therefore, at a minimum, that Intelligent Design may be true........ |
