That's debatable

"It's anything but the romantic idea that nature is kind and stable," said blind paleontologist Dr. Vermeij of his work showing "mollusks appear to have evolved ever more rugged armor to protect their delicate flesh just as their predators developed more vicious weaponry . . . It's nasty, and things get nastier and nastier. Everyone is affected mostly by their enemies." 'Reminds us of the ongoing Darwin vs. "Intelligent Design" wars. (Republication of photo from our earlier post "Bloggers are 'cracking, popping, drilling and peeling their victims open.")

"Check out the comments to this post on ID and Darwinism. They provide a variety of viewpoints on this subject; reading them has helped me get my mind around the issue," writes blogger Jason Broander of MaroonBlog re the feverish outpouring of opinions -- 53 comments and six trackbacks last time we checked -- brought forth by our InstaLanched Darwin/ID post Saturday. A sampling:

Goomp: No one knows all the answers, and there is room for many different approaches as long as dogma and hostility toward those with other explanations do not become the order of the day. If what I can live with is right for me. so be it, but I have no right to force others to accept my beliefs.

Daniel: Is shutting down debate over your favored theory by calling those who don't agree with you "scientifically illiterate" really a promising way to start a discussion???

TigerHawk: I said that? :) Thanks for remembering!

Gabriel Hanna: To say that Darwinists must think it is right to exterminate the less fit, simply because nature does, is the sign of a confused mind ignorant not just of science but of ethics.

Laurie K: The Bible is, to me, a profound and truthful book concerning the soul and its mysteries. It is, however, an extremely poor science textbook.

Jeff Hull: I believe that Jesus Himself gave the definitive guidance on this question in Luke 20:21-2: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Render unto science, that which is of science. Render unto God, that which is of God.

Big Dirigible: "species of . . . plants that roamed the earth." What a, ahhh, unique concept. [Caught in the act of an infelicitous choice of words to describe the migrations of plant populations, we washed our roaming paw and changed "roamed the earth" to the more ear-pleasing and resonant "have been fruitful and multiplied upon the earth."]

Jim Anderson of decorabilia:  I'd be fascinated to see the response if Bush had called for "equal time" for, say, non-abstinent sex ed. You know, because there's a scientific "controversy."

M. Simon of Power and Control: If Intelligent Design is a fact how do you explain so many stupid people?

Beth Cleaver of My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, who says "up until this point I've avoided [the subject] like the plague" because of hot headedness on both sides: I don't want to be on the side of people who bash faith. I don't want to be on the side of those (much fewer in number) who think people who accept evolution are "Godless," either.

Blue Goldfish: Religion is about all of life with all of its facets. And science is about all of our study and examination of these facts . . . Beware of reductionism -- of reducing reality to one or more of its aspects.

Protagonist of Wyatt's Torch, who engages in an extended private conversation in our cybersalon with Daryl Herbert of D. Herbert: These deep questions exceed the scope of this blog.

The above-mentioned Daryl Herbert: It's just not worth it.

Diggs: Closed minds seem to be apparent on both sides of this debate.

David Fleck: Just fyi, Ernst Mayr died earlier this year. [Post updated accordingly]

Michael Farris: Although I'm an atheist/agnostic, I will agree that militant atheists, including some scientists, are royal pains in the a**. Unfortunately, there is a subset of the religious (primarily literalists of the fundamentalist protestant variety) who are trying to make sure that scientists say/teach nothing that contradicts their beliefs. I frankly think they are a menace and need to be stopped (as civilly as possible).

Three of Six: The Bible isn't a science text book, never was, never will be. So why are some intent on setting up a false choice, putting our children in an impossible situation, like having to choose between mom and dad?

DBL: What is so objectionable about ID is that it teaches students a completely cockamamie theory of science. Instead of falsifiable theories that can be tested, refined and eventually refuted, ID posits an absolute truth than cannot be tested or refuted. This is not science, and no one here has even attempted to argue to the contrary.

Thanks, everybody, for letting us know what you think. As for ourselves, we come down on both sides of the debate in the Jeff Hull "Render unto science, that which is of science" sense, as our "Render unto Darwin those things which are Darwin's" post of way back in February 2004 suggests.

Comments

[goomp]

Most of the bloggers involved in the discussion appeared to favor thinking rather than pure emotion. Good show I say.

[Blue Goldfish]

It is also apparent that many in the controversy simply do not know the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Also, many reduce reality to one or more of its aspects. And, many appear to be operating from a dualistic (nature/grace, physical/spiritual, Greek) worldview. This, rather than a holistic worldview (Hebrew) and a recognition of reality with multiple modalities or aspects, laws for each, and norms. Especially the MSM is responsible for much of the stereotyping and the resulting confusion.

Ask someone - anyone - who claims to be educated to describe to you the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design and listen to the answer. It is *that* apparent.