No, really, look at this guy. He's sad.
Fortunately for everyone, I'm here to save the day.
Anyway, being a denizen of Okrahoma, I check the Univ of Okra student paper from time to time. It's not exactly fair to pick on sophomores who haven't decided on a major yet, but my wife pointed this out to me. I had a pretty hard, frustrating day yesterday, so last night I took out some of my frustration on this hapless student's column. I'll share my comment with you:
An awful lot of energy was expended here to hate on Sally Kern and her "ilk".
Taking a look at this young gentleman's face and deducing that he's probably a naturalist, it makes me wonder: Whence cometh his moralistic tendencies? Why is it wrong, on his naturalistic evolutionary view, to indoctrinate children with fundamentalist dogma? Why is it wrong to hate on homosexuals? Why is it wrong to push ID down people's throats?
I'm not saying I'm necessarily for (or against) any of this - what I am questioning is how Mr. Smith decides what's right and wrong, because he certainly assumes it an awful lot. Maybe his next column could tell us all how he knows that, beyond what boils down to "I don't like Action X, much like I don't like broccoli". Can he give a justification for all these calls to action? After all, he's just going to die some day and be worm food. So what if ID is taught in schools? So what if he wrote 10 letters to the governor?
The other flaws in the column are almost too numerous to count.
One wonders whether the OU Daily knew they were getting a cheap Dick Dawkins knock-off when they dispensed their August stipend.
-No Christian or ID-er believes the designer is "magical". Try again.
-This does not fit the proper definition of "superstition". Dictionary.com is a useful tool.
-ID and creationism usually don't get along well. They don't claim each other. If Smith had bothered to read a little bit of their interaction, he might know that. ID thinks creationism goes too far, unjustifiably far. Creationism thinks ID is wimpy and gives too much room to naturalistic presuppositions. They're not friends, though the greater enemy beckons to each of them.
-Smith didn't define "science" for us, so there's no way to know whether ID is science or not. Is "science" a methodology? A conclusion? Is "scientific" a method or a description of a set-in-stone orthodoxy?
-ID-ers don't propose ID as the "default" alternative. Simply as AN alternative. Perhaps Smith could quote an ID-er to that effect.
-One wonders if Smith realises that the principle of falsifiability is unfalsifiable.
-Smith shows no recognition of the obvious fact that the Designer may well have desired to create sub-optimal structures. But perhaps Smith knows something about the Designer that we don't, in which case he's lying to us all about not believing in ID.
-Smith tells us that evolution accounts for the many design flaws. Creationists and ID-ers alike will shout a hearty "Amen!" to that. What they want to know is how evolution accounts for the great deal of GOOD and USEFUL design, without resorting to the infusion of intelligence into the equation. Bring THAT up to an evolutionist and try to count the stutters.
-ID-ers have published quite a few papers in peer-reviewed journals. Smith is simply wrong about this.
That was approximately as easy as refuting a Dick Dawkins or Chrissy Hitchens book. He’s so wrong about so much, but he’s merely a messenger of a sad movement. One hopes the movement is dying, for the good of reason everywhere.