tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post113520940628222285..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: Letter on ID in "The Philosophers Magazine"Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1135322936046755592005-12-23T00:28:00.000-07:002005-12-23T00:28:00.000-07:00Does that journal lay out a hypothesis for intelli...Does that journal lay out a hypothesis for intelligent design? As you are aware, one of the great failings of the defendants in Dover was to present any theory of intelligent design. Consequently, it's quite premature to say there is any ID theory. That is also the position of Paul Nelson at the Discovery Institute, that there is not yet any theory, and consequently nothing for schools to teach.<BR/><BR/>If all of science agrees it's not science, why should we waste time on it?Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-1135299519441506812005-12-22T17:58:00.000-07:002005-12-22T17:58:00.000-07:00I greatly enjoy this blog, but have a question abo...I greatly enjoy this blog, but have a question about this letter.<BR/><BR/>I was under the impression that it wasn't that ID proponents wanted it to be REQUIRED that ID be taught along with Darwinism, but only that it legal for it to be taught, if that's what the school or teacher wants to do. In short, educators should have the freedom, but not necessarily a mandate, to teach ID and criticize Darwinism in the classroom. <BR/><BR/>Am I wrong that this is what ID advocates typically push for?R. Chapmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17685191286012776830noreply@blogger.com