I espcially liked the Chesterton gem in this paragraph:
But, well, I don't see the big problem with saying, "When it walks and talks like a duck, odds are it's a duck." So when I look at what the ID guys call "specified complexity," I make exactly the same inference every single time: Somebody designed this, just like the Boeing engineers did. I don't think there's any need to invoke the God of the Gaps, or to assume that the Somebody who designed it couldn't have used natural means to achieve his affect. But I do have the same sensation as Chesterton when he observed that, "One elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot." When something is massively and eloquently redolent of the astounding ingenuity of the Creator, as, say, even the simplest living system is (however it may have evolved), then why not chalk it up to a Creator? I don't think that takes a God-of-the-Gaps argument. I think it just takes common sense. If an arrow in a target says "archer" and a bullet in a body says "murderer," then why doesn't that paramecium motor scream "design"?
Note: Shea's understanding of the ID argument as displayed in the piece are not exactly correct. I don't think he really understands the precise meaning of "irreducible complexity", and he speaks of paramecium motors instead of bacterial motors.
Also, one of the comments to the post sums up something very well:
Re: Methinks the lady doth protest too much
December 08th, 2009 | 1:13pm
Hey guys, if this "i.d." business is such a loser, why all the outrage and emotion? And you can forget the hackneyed, "I'm really just a superior person attempting to keep others from falling prey to superstition" routine. Your lack of charity is all too manifest in your remarks.
My sentiments exactly. Even if evolution is true, the bigotry, elitism, and arrogance of its defenders would make me want to see it fail.