Much Empathy-

for the author of this piece by Melanie Phillips at the Spectator.

 Basically, she says: "Well, I don't necessarily believe this theory (and here's refutations of your ad hominems) but that doesn't make it false, and the arguments you're offering boil down to 'Nuh-uh! Poopy head!' Have you got anything better? Here is what they are actually saying...."

 I've ended up arguing on the side of stuff I don't agree with because the folks on "my" side were offering such horrible arguments. Generally, not about anything more important than the moral potential of the Cardassian people, or refuting weak arguments against moral equivalency, but still. (of course, I've also chosen sides in some arguments I didn't really have a view on, based on which side was puffing up like a toad-- it's not flattering to admit, but it's oh so tempting....)

 Anyways, my favorite paragraph:

ID makes space -- as the result of science -- for belief in a creator, whether this is a deistic being (conveniently vague) or the Biblical God (uncomfortably moral). That certainly takes us into the realm of faith. Indeed, as already noted it takes us into pretty much the position occupied by many believers in Biblical religion – but it does so through the route of science. And that’s the incendiary point. For the idea that faith might actually be informed by science sends the materialist fundies totally and completely ape -- as Darwin might have said. (Atheists! Joke alert!!)

On a side note: I'm starting to think that maybe, when folks get famous, something just goes wrong in their heads.... or maybe just has a bigger chance to?

 I mean, we have "Holly Weird" full of examples, and I can remember when Andrew Sullivan was enjoyable and reasonable to read, as well as some other folks I can think of but don't feel like fighting about....