I would like to start a series of posts examining some of the most common objections to ID. It is hard for ID to get a fair hearing, particularly in the wake of the Dover debacle[1]. But that is what I am going to try to do: present, as I understand them, the merits of ID and the challenges facing it. Doing this solely by examining objections is not the most systematic approach, but it will suffice to sketch the landscape and I think the format is more engaging.

Many arguments against ID are horribly bad, suggesting no effort whatsoever to honestly engage the claims ID is making. I am tempted to simply ignore these, since the principle of charity requires interacting with the best arguments of one's opponents. I hear them too often to let them pass without comment, however, and the principle of charity will not be violated so long as I don't ignore the substantive arguments.

I don't know how big the hostile readership of this blog is, but I welcome critiques of my critiques. We aren't all religious nutjobs, whatever you may have read on the Panda's Thumb. We're searching for the truth and following the arguments where they lead us.

---

[1] I call Dover a debacle not because it represents a defeat for the principles of ID, but because it was a PR nightmare. It was reported as a plot by the insidious creationists to corrupt the minds of high schoolers. But in reality most everyone in the ID camp thought the Dover school board's decision was a bad one. The Discovery Institute even counseled them against it.