HLR Update The Washington Monthly has now entered the fray concerning the pro-ID Book Note that appeared in the Harvard Law Review (see my post of March 17), with this blog entry, written by Kevin Drum. Drum's conclusion is clearly stated and right-on:
I've been following the whole thing with one eye, and while I have no sympathy for the ID jihadists I admit that all along I've had a sneaking feeling that, in fact, maybe it really was a bit inappropriate for an influential, tenured law professor to write such a blistering attack on a lowly student. Positions of power and all that, you understand.
Today, though, I finally got around to reading VanDyke's note (warning: large, slow-loading file) and I immediately changed my mind: Leiter probably went too easy on this cretin. Here's the damning sentence:
``...while lumping ID with creationism may be a good rhetorical strategy for ID's opponents, it only detracts from an independent and rigorous evaluation of the merits of ID's claims against those of naturalistic evolution.''
This sentence could be written only by someone entirely ignorant of both the history and substance of ID (which VanDyke surely isn't) or someone who is simply a shill for creationism
And, when it comes to plain truth, clearly stated, it's hard to top this sentence:
What are the actual arguments in favor of ID? The primary one is to accept that science classes are indeed supposed to teach science, but that ID is science. Sadly, though, the scientific community has already passed unanimous judgment on this claim: it's horseshit.
So read the rest of the article.