From the first piece linked above:
A curious feature of most of the recent media coverage and commentary on intelligent design, is how insubstantial it is. Rarely do critics feel the need even to give an accurate definition of ID, let alone provide evidence that they've ever read anything written by an ID theorist. In fact, they seem unaware that they're substituting venom, ad hominems, and bigotry for actual argument.
Robert McHenry's therapeutic rant at Tech Central Station is a nice example. Presumably he feels better for having written it. He's the Former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica, and author of a book called How to Know. So presumably the guy is smart. And yet he seems to know nothing about ID except the prejudices he started with.
Anyone with superficial exposure to the ID literature, whether an ID sympathizer or critic, can evaluate McHenry's critique without help from me. Responses like his suggest that we're onto something. When critics have real arguments, they use them. When they don't, they sneer.
Yup.
5 comments:
Mark, thanks for the comment. I understand where you're coming from on this. I think I still side with the ID'ists rather than the theistic evolutionists because, as far as I can tell from my readings on the subject (from both sides), there is no reason to think that Darwinism itself is particularly well founded from an evidentiary point of view absent a prior commitment to naturalism or a completely hidden God. Without that commitment, the evidence and arguments and extrapolations backing the Darwinist philosophy (random mutation, natural selection, no goal) are simply not very compelling.
On the entire subject, I'd be satisfied for scientists of all stripes to be able to do their work and have their opinions without fear of ostracism and persecution. And it would be nice to see atheists/secularists refrain from using an insufficiently supported scientistic philosophy as a club against theists. The problem is not necessarily with the scientists themselves but with an entire academic culture that, no matter what the subject, has assumed that atheistic Darwinism (which theistic evolutionists acknowledge as "the way things look") is a proven fact of the universe.
Well, Mark, as an electrical engineer, I have an a priori commitment against bad science. When I became Catholic, I had no grudge against Darwinism at all. In fact, one of the books that powerfully steered me toward the faith in a mystical sense presupposed evolution as a theological imperative, and this is how I looked at things. I'm an ID'ist for scientific, not religious reasons. My belief in the Trinity is not based on the design argument.
Based on my own investigatory reading (and really, this isn't the sort of thing that can be hashed out in web comments), I don't agree that the theistic evolutionists have been right about a lot of things because it's simply not the case that the Darwinists have been right about a lot of things.
The four definitions that Meyers (and I) affirm, simply do not logically imply macroevolution.
Your last comment also seems to have an implied argument from authority along the lines of "See, you're in the minority because both theists and atheists can affirm Darwinism. Therefore Darwinism must somehow be neutral and reasonable, requiring no particular a priori commitment. You both have such a commitment, and are just one out of 3 possibilies, the other 2 of which affirm Darwinism. So you should accept that you are probably wrong."
As I said before, I'd be more than content to have these kinds of differences of opinion not result in social, academic, or career persecution. In other words no one should really be putting anyone "on the other side of the barbed wire" based on the evidence we actually have. Freedom of inquiry and all. There are, in fact, some very good reasons that you never hear anyone saying that "Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are valid science and just as well established as Darwinism!", while you quite often hear the opposite.
My position is quite similar to the scientist I quoted here:
http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2005/05/well-well-well.html
Also, I took a look at your blog. Nice work.
I wouldn't agree that natural selection does, in fact, get the job done, but I don't have any objections to common descent. I also don't belabor Darwin himself much of anything. His mid- nineteenth century claims were a bit more humble than the way the ACLU looks at things.
From looking at your blog I can see that you regard the evolutionary process (random mutation, natural selection) itself to possibly be a wonderful design of some sort. As for myself, given my 20 years as an engineer, I don't see the mere presence of a "natural selection feedback loop" to be a sufficient explanation. I can see that it would be attractive and elegant if it did work, but I just don't see that it would.
It's fine with me if Darwinists keep on looking. However, the ACLU ought to keep the hell out of it. It can't possibly be the case that factual evidence in favor of Darwinism is "science" but factual evidence against is "religion".
Also, I don't see why the Darwinists get to shout "God of the gaps!" and tell everyone else to shut up. First of all, to say "God of the gaps" is to admit there ARE gaps (and you seem to agree with that). It is also to say, "only WE get to fill in the gaps". Well that's as arbitrary a power play and leap of faith as anything else. Darwinists and their secularist "sick the lawyers on the biology teacher" friends should not be asserting ownership of the gaps. I'll take my chances with risking a failed "god of the gaps" argument. It's my choice to make, not the Darwinists. Anyway, shouldn't they gleefully anticipate the prospect? So why all the strong-arm tactics? Aren't they standing on solid ground? Or is to have one's mind infected with ID arguments a form of mental pollution that makes one unable to see the Real Truth? Is Darwinism that fragile?
As I've said, I'm seeking a neutral playing field where no one is legally and professionally intimidated into submission. I believe you are seeking the same thing...
I see alot of discussion about micro/macroevolution, natural selection, mutation, ect. I feel these issues are beside the point.
The point we really should be focusing on is the origin of the first organism.
ID seems to be saying that nature alone could not account for the immense complexity and information in the first organism. I tend to agree.
Evolutionary Mechanisms, such as the ability to initiate or repair mutation (see http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050518175350.htm) could have been programmed in.
I have yet to see a plausable scientific explanation for the origin of the first organism. Other than ID, that is.
Matteo, I don't know if you will see this, but thanks for your kind words about my book, By Design or by Chance?
Re archives and the Post-Darwinist, I tried it the way you suggested, but then the box that lists the other ID blogs of interest ended up at the bottom of the page.
I found three was not a huge difficulty reading archives if I just clicked on the date.
cheers, Denyse
Post a Comment