Over at The Questionable Authority, Mike Dunford issues the following blanket statement:
The Intelligent Design folks, on the other hand, loudly declare that they are indifferent to religion every chance that they get. They have no choice. Their mission is to destroy good science education for every child in the public schools of America, and they can't do that if they are obviously driven by religious motives.
Since I'm often on the receiving end of such sloppy stereotypes, and I can only speak for myself, I thought I'd better clean up the mess and set the record straight.
According to Dunford's logic, the reason I won't fess up to being "driven by religious motives" is because it would undercut my mission to destroy good science education. There is one problem with this argument – I have no mission to destroy good science education. Neither do I have a mission to insert ID into the public school classrooms. Neither do I have a mission to "teach the controversy" or point out "problems" with evolution in the public school classrooms. On the contrary, I publicly opposed teaching ID in the classrooms years before any Dover decision. Duh. And besides, have we forgotten that we live in the post-wedge world, where a federal judge has powerfully ruled that ID cannot be taught in the schools? Since ID is dead as a "wedge," what sense does it make to keep "hiding" those religious motivations?
Thus, according to the Logic of Dunford, even though I have always opposed teaching ID in the schools, and even though a federal judge has ruled that you cannot teach ID in the schools, I supposedly won't fess up about my super-secret religious motivations because I am on a mission to destroy science by getting ID taught in the schools. After all, I'm just an IDiot.
Yet as you can see, the effulgent conclusion of "they have no choice" does not apply to me. Oh, oh. Now what shall the critics do? How shall they prop up their quest to portray me as someone who is dishonest? I have explained the clear logic of the concept of ID, where a design inference does not mandate a religious assumption or conclusion, but that point does not fit into their rhetorical template and is thus ignored. So what can they do? According to the critical thinking skills of the critics, my unwillingness to fess up about my religious motives MUST be a function of my dishonesty. Remember folks, most ID critics are enslaved to a stereotype where ALL proponents of ID MUST be either stupid, deluded, or dishonest. Stereotypes to the rescue!
[At this point, because most critics think in simplistic terms, I better point out that I am not defending/describing the ID movement or its leaders. I am defending myself against the stereotypes and rhetoric of the critics. I know it's silly that I have to point this out, but I'm dealing with critics, y'know.]
Yet there is always one part that is missing from the critic's rhetorical finger-pointing: details. I have learned from experience that critics love to make ambiguous, self-righteous accusations. But if I am supposed to have these religious motivations for proposing ID, why don't the critics spell out my religious motivations? What are they? They think they know that I have them, but for some odd reason, they are awfully reluctant to spell them out. So please dear critics, tell me what it is that motivates me. Let me help:
MikeGene's religious motivations for proposing ID are……..