let's clear things up

Wow, the controversy brewing in Kansas concerning the theory of evolution sure brings out a lot of logical fallacies. I am very aware of the specific controversies surrounding this, as I am familiar with the work of Discovery Institute, the leading proponent of intelligent design. I read an editorial in the New York Times concerning these events, and I counted five in a brief piece. Whenever someone resorts to logical fallacy, keep moving ahead with your argument!

Besides the fallacies, it was a highlight to me to see the use of a phrase first used in context with this issue in the famous quote by Richard Lowentin, Harvard University geneticist.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. (my bold)

Here is a line from yesterday’s editorial,

Although the chief critics say they do not seek to require the teaching of intelligent design, they add the qualifier "at this point in time." Once their foot is in the door, the way will be open.

Using logical fallacy and making unsubstantiated claims bodes well for the work of those questioning some of the “givens” of the Darwinian evolution model. I seem to recall a line from Shakespeare,

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

This is getting more and more interesting.