Posted December 11, 2005
It is interesting to watch ID activists act skeptically towards the reported beating of a recently controversial KU religion professor. If, as many critics now believe, the police will eventually conclude that the report is a hoax, they will do so based on the naturalistic and materialistic constraints of their worldly occupation. However, ID supporters don't suffer from such constraints and are freer to follow the evidence wherever it leads.
Clearly, it is in the realm of possibility that the professor was attacked not by "rednecks," but by angels sent by The Almighty to punish the professor for upsetting His chosen people, Kansasís Religious-Right Republicans. In fact, this explanation is actually better than all others currently under consideration because it can explain any and all evidence uncovered during the investigation. Even the lack of evidence can be explained by the angels' magical powers.
As with all other Intelligent Design explanations, this explanation's correctness is plainly obvious to its supporters, who thus have no interest in proving it. Critics bear the onus to prove it wrong. Unless any critic can produce an infinitely detailed naturalistic explanation (down to the position of every sub-atomic particle in the universe) for the time of the assault, then Assaulting Angels are clearly the best explanation for what happened to the professor. Critics who ignore this explanation are dogmatic materialists wanting to remove God from police investigations.
(Hat tip to Wesley.)
Originally posted at De Rerum Natura.