A student at Boise State University recently published an opinion article in the campus newspaper, the Arbiter Online, defending intelligent design. In the article Aaron Vandenbos observed that there is a difference between how ID-proponents and evolutionists behave when in debate: “In my experience, IDists, knowing that they are the underdog, are careful to be objective and factual. On the other hand, I have noticed that evolutionists tend to spend most of their time questioning their opponents’ credibility, belittling their opponents’ intelligence, demolishing straw men and then doing victory laps.” He then explained that evolutionists have defined the terms of this debate so as to settle it before it has even begun. Mr. Vandenbos wrote:

Now, I certainly do not claim to be an expert by any means, but as far as science is concerned, my GPA can’t get any higher. Does that count for anything? Apparently not, considering my origin’s views. Unfortunately this is the typical treatment for all dissenters from Darwinism. I am viewed as a poor scientist because I do not adhere to evolution and I do not adhere to evolution because I am a poor scientist.

Interesting, isn’t it?

Evolutionists have won a great battle in the culture wars by defining science as it suits their purpose. Many people know that a literal interpretation of science is knowledge, yet the vast majority of evolutionists hold to a definition of science that presupposes purely naturalistic mechanisms, deliberately excluding non-naturalistic explanations.

In other words, the war is won by default before it has even begun.

(Aaron Vandenbos, “Evolution is just as religious as Intelligent Design,” 2/1/07, Arbiter Online)

Interestingly, one Darwinist commenter simply said in response: “Stay in school and quit repeating the same tired claptrap that comes out of the Discovery Institute.” I suppose the only counter-response that can be said is that this commenter simply proved Mr. Vandenbos’ point.