well, if you ask me …

I remember seeing this debate on PBS in 1997. I taped it and watched it with my students. Mr. William F. Buckley, Mr. Philip Johnson, Dr. Micheal Behe, and Dr. David Berlinski argued that schools should point out that Darwinian evolution is not the only plausible theory for explaining the origin of life. We enjoyed the debate, but decided the solution was not clear. It is obvious to me that Darwinian evolution does a poor job of explaining the origin of life, but whether public school should present ‘alternate’ theories is not clear to me.One of my favorite parts of the debate was when a presenter from the con side began to confront Mr. Johnson about books written by ICR. In either case, Mr. Johnson was noticeably conflicted. No doubt, he wanted to distance himself from a radical ‘creationist’ organization without compromising his strong faith. When challenged to respond to questions on the ’silliness’ of books depicting dinosaurs roaming the earth with men, he finally responded by saying

It is silly. Just almost as silly as the work of Richard Dawkins.

Saying this turned the tables. It was evident that the con side wanted to treat Dawkins just as the pro side wanted to treat organizations like ICR.This is the light in which I’ve always seen Dawkins. He can resort to philosophical games regarding the ‘problems’ with Darwinism. He can talk in terms of generalizations. Why? He doesn’t have to worry about the science. He is not a scientist. He can spout generalizations and grandiose verbiage. No need to support it with facts. I’ve read Dawkins’ books and I enjoyed them, but I see him for what he is. He is a militant atheist who believes he has found in Darwinism a tool which he can use to demolish theism. He is not a scientist. He writes popular books in order to persuade his readers that Darwinism can be applied to other areas of life.Albert Mohler correctly points out that Dawkins has is a committed atheist with an aggressive and undisguised secularism, but misses the point that this irrational behavior stems from his mixture of science and philosophy. I pray that proponents of Intelligent Design do not become known for the same.