Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution
Why can't evolutionists afford to have Intelligent Design presented in public school classrooms- even if it is an elective and not presented in science classes?
Because if ID is presented properly the kids would find out that ID is NOT anti-evolution.
In What is evolution?, Larry Moran, professor, biologist, evolutionist and staunch anti-IDist, all but proves that neither ID NOR Creation (baraminology) are anti-evolution.
I say that because both allow for changes in allele frequency. Both allow for populations to change via mutation, heredity and differential survival.
The only thing ID argues against is blind watchmaker-type processes (accumulating genetic accidents) having sole dominion over the changes.
IOW the debate is over mechanisms- designed to evolve (ID)- think targeted search- vs evolution via an accumulation of genetic accidents (evolutionism).
So why do people need to misrepresent ID?
That is much easier than actually having to do something. And it works as long as ignorance prevails.
And that is why they cannot afford to have it presented- their lies will be exposed.
I just started reading "Why Intelligent Design Fails", and have already encountered numerous strawman arguments.
Gary Hurd, for example, talking about the EF says that design is the default once chance and regularity have been eliminated. Yet the flowchart he copied says that isn't so.
Ya see not only do chance and regularity need to be eliminated but a specifcation has to be met.
But anyway I jumped to Gary's chapter because he is a familiar anti-IDist.
I am sure I will have one strawman from every chapter.