a moment of truth

DaveScot, on Dembski's blog, goes candid:

I believe the only obstacle to [Intelligent Design]’s success as a valid scientific worldview is defeating Darwin’s exclusive reign as the only valid explanation for life in high school science classes, which is unfortunately the beginning and end of most people’s exposure to evolution-related science....

No need to pretend that ID is or ever will be a fully-established research program that will convince actual scientists, right?*

...The major impediment to this is the establishment clause. What DI has been less than successful at is divorcing ID from religion in the view of the judiciary and to a lesser extent in the court of public opinion. My hope is that the tortured latter 20th century interpretation of the establishment clause gets relegated to the dustbin of history where it belongs as soon as our fearless leader President Bush can make a couple supreme court appointments....

Anyone who thinks that ID is primarily a scientific movement is deluded. This isn't about who has the better explanation for the diversity of life on earth, fossil evidence, or irreducible complexity. It's about power, politics, and popularity. Science is a tangential concern.

Elsewhere, DaveScot has said,

... [A] bible-toting image of ID proponents is exceedingly egregious to me. I’m an agnostic and ID is perfectly suited to that world view.

Yet in calling for a new reading of the Establishment Clause, DaveScot perpetuates that very image.



*Incidentally, I agree that everyone should know more, much more, about evolutionary theory, starting with its opponents.