Thursday, August 04, 2005

Various notes: white racists, Intelligent Design vs. Creationism, etc.

Larry Elder writes today on blacks and the Democratic Party. It's a mismatch, to be sure. Elder writes: "The Democratic Party says to blacks, 'You're a victim. We're here to help.' " Naturally.

This statement alone explains much of the troubles today within the black community. Blacks, like us all, need school vouchers, not a borderline-oppressive system of public education. They need the free market, not heavy government regulation of the economy. The state needs to instill a sense of personal responsibility, not the dependency of a culture of victimhood. And the black family must be strengthened, not torn apart by a broken culture.

The only final answer to this brokenness, of course, in the black community, white community, and everywhere else, is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Star Parker and her organization are the best at promoting the true interests of the black community in America today.

And on a different subject, President Bush's recent remarks on Intelligent Design have brought the issue back into focus and garnered Bush plenty of criticism. But all ID proponents like myself are fighting for right now (education-wise) is to have scientific criticisms of the theory of evolution be taught in school (along with the theory), and that teachers be allowed to discuss ID or other theories if a student brings them up. But academic freedom seems to be too much to ask at a time when science is heavily grounded in a materialistic philosophy that cannot be questioned.

ID theory, in fact, is so strong that it won over Antony Flew, who was previously considered the greatest atheist philosopher in the world. ID - not the cosmological argument, or the axiological argument, etc. - is what made him a theist. Chuck Colson discusses it.

Critics claim that ID is another form of creationism, which is a religious doctrine, not a scientific theory. That's nonsense, of course. ID is a theory based on empirical observation. Creationism is usually based on scripture. ID is science (as traditionally defined); religious documents aren't (and though they may be true, as the Bible is, they aren't in the realm of empirical science, which nevertheless upholds the Bible's claims about the nature of the world). ID is good science. ID is true. Its proponents include evolutionists, agnostics, and countless others. ID may have philosophical implications, but so do other scientific truths about the world (and so does Darwinism, a non-truth). John West at the Discovery Institute writes about this.

For more on the issue, see the Discovery Institute, ARN, and several ID blogs listed on my blogroll on the left-hand column.

Changing topics, political commentator Michael Barone has launched a blog at US News & World Report. The thesis of this post: Being president of the United States is hard. Give those guys credit.

Update: Creationist organizations, unfortunately, have always criticized ID. Note that Answers in Genesis laments ID's "
refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God." Why doesn't ID do that? Because ID is science, and empirical investigation can't teach us everything about the Biblical God. The Bible does that; science can only point to a Designer. Indeed, science is limited to the physical world, and God is so much more than physical.

Creative Commons License