ID v. Darwinism

The title of this post is linked to WBUR, Boston, which has a program called "On Point." Though it's not a head-to-head debate on ID v. Darwinism, I think the host gives due credit in both sections; the first with Gilder on ID is honestly somewhat frustrating, but the interview with Dawkins is amazing. I highly suggest taking a listen, maybe skipping ahead to the latter half.

It's not that I simply disagree with ID, because I think at it's root there is a little something to it. But to use an anthropomorphed version of intellect, which Gilder directly says they're not doing while indirectly confirming the entire way through, is circular. Naturally, to get an intelligent director to start off the first cells or even macromolecules, you'd need something to start off the intelligent director. And, though I fully endorse the following argument, something tells me even the ID proponents don't think "it's turtles all the way down."

But, regardless of your take on ID v. Darwinism, even if you live in Kansas, the Dawkins portion of the interview is funny. Just a few transcripts to entice you to listen:

[For those who don't know, Richard Dawkins is British. This refers to the recent Kansas decision as well as for Bush.] "Well, it's not that we don't have wing-nuts and creationists in this country, we do...the difference is we don't let them have political power"

[A phone in questioned how human being could come from nothing, how as complex as we are, Darwinism couldn't explain how we came to be] "Well, really the only thing I can tell you is to go away and read a book." [he goes on to explain a few things about it, but then says] "But basically I cannot explain this all in a soundbyte, so go away and read a book."

Anyways, hope you enjoy it. Feel free to leave comments if you've got them.

Post Scripts...