Here’s the latest from William Dembski:
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter’s signing of a transgender anti-discrimination bill points up the lunacy that ensues in a world without design.
He then links to this article by Ross Kaminsky in the right-wing magazine Human Events.
I have no comment on whether or not this is a good bill, since I have not read it and know about it only from Dembski’s post. It sounds fine in principle, but Kaminsky raises some interesting practical issues in his article. Human Events is not a publication I trust, however, especially not on issues like these.
But perhaps you are wondering what ID has to do with the issue of equal treatment of transgendered people. If you are, here’s Phillip Johnson explaining the issue. You see, he actually devoted a chapter to this question in his book The Right Questions:
For example, Darwinists insist that birds do not fly because they were meant to fly but because they happened to evolve that potential and then exploited it in order to survive and reproduce.
For the same reasons, the teachers all assume that humans do not reproduce sexually in order to further some purpose of a Creator. Students learn that sexual reproduction evolved by accident and then spread from one species to another because it provided some advantage to the species that happened to reproduce that way. Once we understand that life has no ultimate purpose, we are free to divorce sex from reproduction and employ it entirely for sensual pleasure or personal assertion. The fact of sex may have its origins in biology, but Darwinian biology has no normative implications for how we should live today. Darwinism enabled humans to declare their independence from the primal biblical teaching on sexuality: Genesis 1:27.
So God created humankind in his image
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
Today the substitution of the term gender for sex signifies our declaration of independence from biology as well. Begin with Genesis, and you are on a logical track that leads to the conclusion that our sexuality reflects God’s purpose for our lives. Begin instead with Darwinism, and fantastic as the suggestion would have seemed to Darwin or Huxley, you are on a logical track that leads ultimately to the transgendered son. (pp. 131-132)
Food for thought, indeed.
Of course, Dembski’s brief post only makes sense if the designer he envisions is of the sort whose absence robs us of certain moral strictures on our sexual identities. Something to keep in mind the next time he claims that ID takes no stand on the identity of the designer.