The religion of the objectivity of science is taking a more offensive posture these days as creationists have become more public. As evidence, consider yesterday’s Op-Ed from the New York Times, entitled “Design for Confusion.” [linked above].

The author, Paul Krugman, does not wish to give any dignity to any brainless boob who holds to any form of an Intelligent Design proposition. Instead he “Clintonizes” the debate by suggesting his own “right-wing conspiracy” attack. Rather than engage in the debate and discuss the scientific, philosophical, theological and exegetical issues, he suggests that creationists are actually in a struggle not to posit probable evidence, but pursue mere political effectiveness through maligning evolution and her purely objective proponents.

He suggests:
“Creationists failed when they pretended to be engaged in science, not religious indoctrination: “creation science” was too crude to fool anyone. But intelligent design, which spreads doubt about evolution without being too overtly religious, may succeed where creation science failed.

“The important thing to remember is that like supply-side economics or global-warming skepticism, intelligent design doesn’t have to attract significant support from actual researchers to be effective. All it has to do is create confusion, to make it seem as if there really is a controversy about the validity of evolutionary theory. That, together with the political muscle of the religious right, may be enough to start a process that ends with banishing Darwin from the classroom.”

So, Mr. Krugman suggests that creationists simply demean “the hard sciences” and politically posit and position themselves with deflated and baseless arguments in an attempt to create public disdain for evolutionary proponents. Hmm. A quick read of his own article suggest that he in fact is following the very tactic of which he accuses creationists.

Krugman’s article is nothing more than another empty shirt. He does not engage in the philosophical underpinnings of evolution or her proponents. He assumes that the theory and the public school propagation of it have no biased political agenda by those on the left. He suggests that unbiased and purely objective evidence exists for the theory of evolution, and, by the way should not be questioned, analyzed, or countered.

Consider Dr. Albert Mohler’s comments on other recent offensives launched against creationists in recent days: Tuesday, Aug 2; Saturday, July 23; and Monday, July 11.