John Cartmell wrote:
In article .com,
Tournifreak wrote:
I have to say I'm not entirely convinced by ID, but it would at least
be nice to have a balanced, rational perspective on it rather than
another of Dawkins' infamous tirades against religion.

A balanced perspective on ID would have been far more damning of the whole
idea and its supporters. Horizon was far too kind and took the whole idea
seriously. The whole thing is a fraud that threatens us all. It's a fraud just
like builders using sub-standard materials on a job in your house and putting
your health and safety at risk. It's a fraud like people selling sub-standard
power tools that can break or explode under normal use. Except that the fraud
perpetuated by ID can seriously damage the health and safety of millions of
people. They are dangerous nutters with lots of money and the support of the
President of the USA.

And before anyone dismisses me as a nutter let anyone supporting ID tell you
what experiment or observation might falsify their beliefs. That's the
requirement of any scientific theory and they are pretending that ID is
science.

NB Whilst Dawkins rejects religion you don't need to reject religion in order
to reject ID as science - indeed anyone with a care for religious ideas would
take care to reject the ID claims. Just like the Jesuit on Horizon. Just like
good scientists will publicly reject bad science and bad scientists. Just like
good tradesmen will reject cowboys and dangerous work done by them.


It strikes me that as false science and dangers go, this one is a long
way down the list. We live with plenty of popularisation of
pseudoscience, and there are always casualties.


NT