Daniel Dennett wrote
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/opinion/28dennett.html
>
>
>the Discovery Institute should finance its own 
>peer-reviewed electronic journal.  This way, the 
>organization could live up to its self-professed 
>image: the doughty defenders of brave 
>iconoclasts bucking the establishment.


	There is in fact a well-funded IDT site 
www.iscid.org controlled by one Micah Sparacio 
and by William Dembski whom Dennett correctly 
calls
>one of the most vocal supporters of intelligent design.

	These controllers have repeatedly refused 
to allow me to contribute criticisms to that 
ISCID site; here is an example of what they feel 
their readers should not be exposed to.

==========

	"Creationism" is a significant 
cross-current within Christianity, distracting 
efforts from real issues.   And it presents to 
ignorant, lazy or dishonest outsiders a very 
misleading image of the logic & honesty of 
Christians.  A target is thus created, which is 
nothing better than a caricature, for atheists to 
mock.
	IDT is essentially Paley 1802  -  fine, 
as far as it goes.  Broom's book 'How Blind Is 
The Watchmaker' (IVP 2001) is the best IDT I know 
of  -  and fully acknowledging not only a 
billions-of-years biosphere but also evolution. 
The IDT 'wedge' however has become to some extent 
a front for "creationism".  Prof Don Nield has 
argued, and I agree, that IDT is trying to drive 
in its wedge at the wrong place.
	Full 28 y ago a leading local 
statistician (later prof.), George Seber, tried 
to get me to debate publicly against Duane Gish. 
The notion was in some ways attractive, not least 
because we're both Berkeley Ph.D biochemists; but 
I declined, saying I would not dignify his cause 
by sharing a stage with him.  This reticence, 
uncharacteristic for me, I have never regretted. 
	Much more recently, I gave a talk on 
Creationism to our local Christian Academics 
Group.  In moving the vote of thanks, George 
insisted on ignoring my main point by expressing 
hope that there will be tolerance of Creationism 
alongside the mainstream position which I had 
advocated.
	My own position is similar to that of our 
leading emeritus zoology prof John Morton (see 
his 'Man, Science and God', Collins 1972). 
Although generally critical of the Vatican, I 
think its doctrine on evolution is hard to fault, 
and I credit it for the fact that Rome has had 
little trouble regarding evolution.  On this 
issue if no others, general Christian doctrine 
should learn from the Vatican.
	Around 2 decade ago Creationists tried to 
tamper with school book holdings in Hamilton N.Z. 
I have not learned whether this attempt persisted.
	In 1983 I photographed in the Science 
Museum, Kensington, an exhibit which asserted the 
axiom that  *either*  organisms have evolved 
*or*  God has created them.  This furphy, not 
normally so clearly enunciated, seems to me to be 
not only the fundamental error of the 
Creationist® fanaticism but also typical in its 
illogic of most if not all fundamentalisms.  I 
suggest the racket common to them is the 
requirement of assent to a proposition which is 
not subtly but flagrantly false.  This is not 
ancillary or accidental: I believe it is 
essential, in that once a person has overtly 
signalled switching-off of God-given reason in 
favour of a pointedly false slogan from the sect 
leader(s), obedience can be thereafter required 
much more generally.  This is in the nature of 
totalitarian systems' social psychology.  "The 
Slavs are sub-human" is a prototypical modern 
example of a blatantly false slogan which you had 
to assent to overtly if you were to attain the 
(temporary) social security of the National 
Socialist Party.  "The first 3 chapters of the 
Bible, plus the Noah story, must be taken 
literally" is similar mischief.  I don't see why 
this racket is not more widely & vigorously 
condemned.  Those who propound it do not in fact 
advocate that other parts of the Bible be read 
literally; Broom & I point to John the Baptist's 
hailing "the Lamb of God"  -  why do 
fundamentalists not try to insist that Christ 
assumed ovine form for that occasion on the banks 
of the Jordan?
	As a scientist active in natural 
theology, I support the general gist of IDT as 
such but fear that it functions on the edge of a 
"creationist" whirlpool.

=====

	So, far from 'teaching the controversy', 
IDT head honchos suppress criticism.
	When Dembski visited Auckland I arranged 
a half-day symposium for him with Broom, Nield, 
and other scholars.  He was cordial, but 
unresponsive.  He feels little call upon himself 
to respond to others' reasoning, except by 
issuing great gouts of verbiage at a tangent from 
what they have said.  The Creationists are a 
different character type: they not only don't 
respond to any opponent's reasoning but also 
become, on no shadow of an excuse, rabidly 
abusive.  IDT is a more subtle problem.

	Enemies of religion cannot honestly use 
IDT as a surrogate for genuine scholarship.  It 
purports to be a school of thought, but 
contributes just the one tiny point  -  Paley's 
1802 point  -  and stands pat on that, refusing 
to discuss anything else, as if Dawkins & his ilk 
might concede that point.  This is a crazy 
standoff unworthy of further attention.

R