ID vs. Ego

Nancy Pearcey has an interesting article in Human Events in which she gives five reasons why Intelligent Design will eventually succeed. I recommend reading it. She starts her article by linking to articles by three normally thoughtful commentators who have been very critical of ID. George Will casually swipes at ID as he would a gnat (or should I say "gadfly"?). The closest he comes to an argument is his response to the idea that evolution is not a fact:

"But it is."

If only George had been at the Scopes Trial . . . On the other hand, Charles Krauthammer and John Derbyshire demonstrate that there are limits to any human being's intelligence by furiously constructing and squashing cliched evolutionist ID-strawmen. It seems to me that neither has bothered to learn anything about Intelligent Design, which is too bad. I would like to have read read some thoughtful criticism of ID by these gentlemen. Boiler plate criticism is beneath them.

My favorite quote regarding the WaPo dynamic duo's attitude toward ID comes from Plato's Stepchild [HT: Mondo]:

[Krauthammer and Will] "have now lashed Intelligent Design to the track, hoping to run it down with their train of thought."

Snidley Whiplash redux.

But I'm only a lonely, occaisional blogger. What do I know. Let's see what Father Richard John Neuhaus has to say in response to Will and Krauthammer:

Will and Krauthammer are upset by Pat Robertson, and Pat Robertson is frequently upsetting, but they do not mention the many science textbooks that more or less explicitly state that a scientific account of the origins of life precludes the necessity—some say the possibility—of a Creator. In short, they appear not to be upset that classrooms are being used for propagandizing, in the name of science, an atheistic and materialistic philosophy.

This is just a sample of Father Neuhaus' slapping down of Will and Krauthammer. Be sure to read the entire post by Father Neuhaus. (You will need to scroll about half way down the page.)