What's Good for the Darwinist Goose Should Be Good for the ID Gander - Evolution News & Views

Evolution News and Views (ENV) provides original reporting and analysis about the debate over intelligent design and evolution, including breaking news about scientific research.

Evolution News and Views
EVOLUTION NEWS & VIEWS
 

What's Good for the Darwinist Goose Should Be Good for the ID Gander

After the Kansas school board threw out objective science curriculum standards in favor of dogmatic Darwin-only teaching rules, Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts weighed in on the board's redefining what science is. This was a big issue in 2005 that we reported extensively (see here and here). The board has adopted a definition of science out of step with most states' in the nation.

In coverage of the issue, one news story quoted Dr. Massimo Pigliucci:

Pigliucci, a professor of Ecology & Evolution and Philosophy at SUNY-Stony Brook, told TechNewsWorld. "It simply means that science does not (and cannot) deal with supernatural phenomena."
Quite appropriately, Gene pointed out that atheist Darwinists like Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and PZ Myers are all advocating what he calls a crank position, namely that science proves there is no God. Isn't that dealing with the supernatural?

Still more interesting to me is Pigliucci's response at Telic Thoughts this morning:

pigliucci Says:
February 16th, 2007 at 7:53 am |

It seems to me that Dawkins is wrong in claiming that the existence of a generic God (what he calls "the God hypothesis") is a scientific matter, it isn't. However, he is correct that plenty of specific claims about specific gods can be scientifically tested and refused: if your religion says that there was a worldwide flood 4000 years ago, it is simply wrong, and if that claim is tightly bound with your belief in that god, well, then you are out of luck.

As for Dennett and Harris, I find their claims perfectly reasonable, but they are not saying that those claims are scientific (only consistent with science, which is a wholly different thing).

Cheers,
Massimo Pigliucci

So, when the big bad scary wedge document was splashed all over the internet, we were accused (mistakenly) of trying to usher in a theocracy because we said we had no problem with a science that is consonant (a wholly different thing than same as) with theism. Here's the relevant response from the truth sheet.
It wants to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." We admit it: We want to end the abuse of science by Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson who try to use science to debunk religion, and we want to provide support for scientists and philosophers who think that real science is actually "consonant with... theistic convictions." Please note, however: "Consonant with" means "in harmony with." It does not mean "same as." Recent developments in physics, cosmology, biochemistry, and related sciences may lead to a new harmony between science and religion. (emphasis mine)

What's good for the Darwinist goose should be good for the ID gander.