Daniel Radosh is right on target in asserting that people should know Michael Behe — one of the two foundational scientists for Intelligent Design — thinks that the designer could have been an extraterrestrial or somesuch, and need not have been a traditional deity.
I’ve yet to see a very convincing case for the intelligent design movement, but I’m certainly willing to see the debate over its merits take place — but its extremely important that ID be presented honestly, fairly, and completely.
Radosh is right that the NYT should run a correction for saying that ID “depend[s] on the existence of a supernatural force.” The difference has major implications for how those engaged in the debate could potentially act, and errors on such topics are precisely what corrections are most vital for (I certainly care more about what the NYT does to correct errors about basic debates in cosmology than about its corrections of the spelling of the name of someone so obviously unimportant that no one caught the misspelling).
I think Radosh is probably wrong about the implications, though: assertions that extraterrestrials could be the designer that created the world does more to diminish secularists’ complaints about ID than to dissuade true believers from thinking God was the designer.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 24th, 2005 at 6:51 pm and is filed under Miscellany. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.