Derbyshire should try reading the ID literature

I enjoy John Derbyshire’s posts on National Review Online&’s Corner when he’s talking within his area of expertise. Unfortunately, intelligent design isn’t that area. Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds today quoted Derbyshire from his criticism of ID yesterday at The Corner: Lots of scientists believe in God. Einstein seems to have, for instance. So do I; and so do a great [many] other people who think that ID theory is pure flapdoodle. It is possible to believe in God and not believe in ID; it is possible (as I pointed out in a previous post) to believe in ID but not God. ID theory posits that certain features of the natural world CAN ONLY be explained by the active intervention of Read More ›

What does Derbyshire require to take ID seriously?

John Derbyshire’s article from yesterday’s National Review Online, offered another interesting criticism of ID: It is therefore possible that some un-religious scientist might become convinced, on scientific evidence, of the existence of Intelligent Design, while remaining perfectly open minded about any of the truths of religion. When that scientist shows up, I shall beging [sic] to take Intelligent Design seriously. What about Antony Flew, one of the English-speaking world’s most prominent atheists? Flew has recently said that he’s become a minimal theist. More specifically, he’s said that he’s done so on the basis of evidence for intelligent design, and without converting to any religion. He’s very well studied on the relevant issues. He’s been debating related issues for fifty years, Read More ›