Google
Custom Search

Saturday, September 24, 2005

ID and opponents (on all sides ) on Larry King Live

If you want to sample a range of quotable opinion on the ID controversy, check out CNN: Larry King Live: "Intelligent Design in America's classrooms?"

I kind of like this program lineup because it brings together a number of different (= opposing), quotable voices in the debate today. According to CNN, the program transcript features

- young earth creationist John MacArthur, pastor, teacher at the Grace Community Church; author of The Battle for the Beginning: Creation, Evolution and the Bible host of "Grace to You" and president of the Master's College and founder of the Master's Seminary.

- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. Barbara is the author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design She is professor of philosophy, Southeastern Louisiana University, National Advisory Council of the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

- Deepak Chopra, the best selling author of How to Know God, and founder of the Chopra Center. His blog site, www.intentblog.com, now has a discussion on the topic of creation versus evolution, including lengthy comments by Deepak.

- Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, who supports the president's position on teaching intelligent design as well as evolution, favors teaching both.

- Congressman Chris Shays, Republican of Connecticut, who disagrees with the president on the teaching of intelligent design.

- Dr. Jay Richards, vice president of the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank at the forefront in promoting the intelligent design theory.

Interestingly, in this setting, ID seems middle of the road to me. It's not New Age, YEC, or authoritarian materialist.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.
Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments that are in reality just unpaid advertising, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say "O’Leary is a crummy journalist"; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, "O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983," well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. My apologies to anyone who is offended by an unsuitable comment that I have not had a chance to borf. Bloggers are volunteers. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.

Labels: , , , ,

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Who links to me?