Image via Wikipedia
In an August 26, article by Methodist Examiner James-Michael Smith titled, "Intelligent Design 101 - Is ID religious Creationism in disguise?" he agrees with the judge in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District that ID should not be taught in schools, yet. However, Smith says the Judge was flawed in his reasoning. This is just his opening to his review of William Dembski's new book "The Design Revolution" which Smith says, "...seeks to expose this fallacy in the opening chapters of what is perhaps the best philosophical defense of the validity of the ID approach in print."I will not be reviewing Dembski's book or refuting it's claims here as I have no desire to read it and there are much better bloggers out there that can rip Dembski a new one, and usually do.
Smith goes on to say that,
"Any fair reading of actual ID theory should recognize the difference between ID and Creationism. Those who refuse to recognize this clear distinction are either ignorant of what ID actually claims or intellectually dishonest in attempting to lump it together with Creationism. Hopefully it is the former. "While I may not know everything about ID and creationism there is to know, I have read enough to know that I have not seen any clear differences.
"Of course, intellectual dishonesty has been found on both sides of the debate and any proponent of ID must recognize that many seeking to promote ID have themselves (including Dembski on occasion!) joined it with their religious or political agendas. This is unfortunate of course, but it should not obscure the fact that at the level of actual claims, ID and Creationism are quite different animals."Well actually it does obscure things because it religion is what ID is about.