10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design

Joe Carter, over at Evangelical Outpost, has provided a helpful 3 part series titled “10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design” (part1, part 2, and part 3). His explanations and examples are clear and get his point across. In a nutshell, here are the 10 points:

10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design

1) By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory.

2) By claiming that ID is stealth creationism.

3) By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments.

4) By claiming that ID isn’t science since it’s not published peer-reviewed literature…and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals.

5) By making claims that natural selection/sexual selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features.

6) By invoking design in non-design explanations.

7) By claiming that the criticism of ID has nothing to do with a prejudice against theism — and then having the most vocal critics of ID be anti-religious atheists.

8 ) By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations.

9) By resorting to ad hominems instead of arguments (e.g., claiming that advocates of ID are ignorant, liars, creationists, etc.).

10) By not being able to believe their own theory.

Advertisements

Posted on April 24, 2008, in Science. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Ah!

    Censorship!

    I guess I have been expelled.

    Ironic or what?

    QED.

    Regards,

    Psi

  2. I’m sorry that you think that my removing your last comment fell under the rubric of “academic censorship.” Apparently I didn’t think there was anything academic about it (thus eliminating any parallel with the subject matter of the Expelled film).

    Your original comment demonstrates my point that opponents of ID choose not to actually address the issues laid on the table. I’m sorry this is the case, considering that the subject matter is so rich and interesting.

  3. OK then, apology accepted.

    😉

    Lets look at numbers 1 and 2 first.

    I have looked closely and can find no scientific content for ID, it simply seems to be a claim that “god did it” but with a cheap tuxedo on the “god” word.

    Please enlighten us and tell us what this “theory” is. What method did the designer use? How can we detect this? What experiments can we do to test the “theory”? What possible falsification could we find?

    – – –

    The judge in the Kitzmiller trial had similar problems and ruled that ID is creationism. He was also quite rude about the honesty of several of the ID witnesses. (your point 9 I think – but this from a federal judge)

    The strongest bit of evidence for creationism and ID being the same thing, in my personal opinion, is the fact that the creationist text book “Of Panda’s and People” was changed into an ID text book simply by changing the word “creation” into the words Intelligent Design.

    What do you think?

    Regards,

    Psi

  4. I can give it a try:
    1) By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory.

    Well i don’t do number 1, but I can safely say there is no scientific theory of ID so therefore the strawman may be spurious, but so is the usage of the word “theory” in claim 1 (Unless you mean theory in the colloquial sense).

    2) By claiming that ID is stealth creationism.

    Psilo says what I would of said. I agree it’s not verbatim genesis creationism, but the Kitzmiller trial is rather damning to the Discovery Institute.

    3) By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments.

    I don’t even know what this means…I’d need an example of science of the gaps. Although I can say this, if scientist saw a problem and just said “oh well,” “just because,” or “something ineffable like a deity did it” there certainly wouldn’t be any R&D, and we can all agree scientific R&D is quite beneficial to lifestyle and education.

    4) By claiming that ID isn’t science since it’s not published peer-reviewed literature…and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals.

    Please show an instance where a observational process, that could be re-produced via experimentation or observation was actually refused. I’m not saying it’s never happened, but to the best of my knowledge it hasn’t.

    5) By making claims that natural selection/sexual selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features.

    I’ve again never seen this reported. This claim is drastically leaving out the impact of the environment and environmental relations to the individual organism, and no serious biologist does this…. Even the “notorious atheist” like Stephen Pinker never make such a claim. His book the blank slate is all about this very subject.

    6) By invoking design in non-design explanations.

    huh?

    7) By claiming that the criticism of ID has nothing to do with a prejudice against theism — and then having the most vocal critics of ID be anti-religious atheists.

    Alright what about Francis Collins and Ken Miller. Both theist, both staunchly against ID, and both never questioned or mentioned in Expelled for instance. (And Ken Miller was a witness at the Kitzmilelr trial by the way, and author of Finding Darwins God, a book that express his faith for christ while abhorrence for ID). Also of the three science teachers in the Kitzmiller trial, two were Christians. So this claim just isn’t true. People of faith and no faith in the science community don’t see the science behind ID. Nor do I. This list of ten doesn’t have any science to it.

    8 ) By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations.

    It’s a different field of science Joe, I’m pretty positive you know that. Evolution is the study of life once life exist, abiogenesis is the study of how life came to be. Different topics. Unless you want to start chastising the physicist too because their physics while explaining our present day motions, don’t take into account how we came to be. Or chastise the chemist because life is comprised of chemicals he/she can study, and reactions different chemicals and organisms have, without explaining the origins of said original organism.

    9) By resorting to ad hominems instead of arguments (e.g., claiming that advocates of ID are ignorant, liars, creationists, etc.).

    Some are, some aren’t. Those that are lying should be called out on lying. Those truly ignorant deserve no chastising. Liars everywhere on any side of any fence should be called out for lying. Unfortunately there was quite a lot of “lying” behind the production of both expelled and the Kitzmiller fiasco. However I personally wouldn’t say all ID advocates are liars, I know I’ve never felt you were a liar Joe.

    10) By not being able to believe their own theory.

    huh?

  5. First, before I even begin to respond, you may want to read the article(s) I linked to in the original posting.

  6. Apolojet,

    Wow, you are actually going to respond?

    Great.

    Looking forward to it.

    Regards,

    Psi

  7. Will do Joe. I’ll try to read it sometime today but I can’t guarantee, perhaps tomorrow or the following day (My french courses are cumbersome).
    Glad to see a quick reply though, I hope everything is going well in N.Y. for you.
    -Chris B.

  8. Never mind I read the articles (They were shorter than I anticipated). Anyway in relation to the one cited example of a peer reviewed journal being quelled for ID, here is the actual truth:
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know&page=2
    (Point 4). (I can provide the same evidence from another source if you like….)

    The part about sex selection and behavior also isn’t true, as the quote mining of Richard Dawkins is strictly talking about physical appearances and not actual behavior traits. And regardless one mans quote isn’t the end all explanation for behavior to begin with.

    The #6 claim is also just semantics, if read thoroughly. If you like I can do my best to go over them point by point, or take my word for it. If the former please cite which claim and I’ll address is when my time is sufficient.

    I believe the rest of my claims stand on their own after reading this article.

    “As Expelled makes clear, the most vocal critics of ID are also vocal critics against religion in general. Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Daniel Dennett, Bill Provine, and Michael Shermer are but a few examples of prominent ID critics who spend an inordinate amount of time railing about the ignorance of religious beliefs. They are the rule, not the exceptions.”

    Expelled chose who they wanted to interview, again they left out Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and the science teachers from the Kitzmiller trial. All of whom are theist. Furthermore Expelled simply doesn’t show any science. Regardless of atheist, agnostic, deist, theist, etc this whole debate should focus on one single issue. Is there a process that can be observed and repeated in the laboratory?

    Anyway to be honest I could write something on each of these blogs 10 claims(Which mostly seem to be cherry-picking various Dawkins quotes. The man isn’t the spokesman for evolutionary biology, just a spokesman), but I feel my first 10, for now are sufficient. If you want to reply that’s fine, if you don’t that’s fine too.

    I’m not sure why psiloi is being pugnacious, I hope my post aren’t permeating the same vibe!

    So again, I hope all is well for you in N.Y. Joe, your absence is certainly noticed by me, I miss our philosophy discourses 😉
    -Chris

  9. Perhaps I should add a few 😉

    😉

    to keep the tone nice and light and friendly

    🙂

    looking forward to your response

    🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: