> I seriously doubt it. I suspect most Darwinists believe this whole
> issue was settled a long time ago and thus would react to claims of
> intelligent design with mild amusement and flippant dismissal.
Dismissal of what? That some people interpret design without any supporting
evidence other than "well it looked intelligently designed". Behe failed,
the 'Design inference' failed.
> If someone suggests that something might be intelligently designed,
> I suspect most Darwinists would not focus on the question of
> whether it was designed, but instead focus on why in the world
> someone even bothered to raise this question.
Why would one presume that something were intelligently designed when no
evidence of such exists?
> But I think it most telling that, while it officially excludes intelligent
> design, biology works because it extensively employs intelligent
> design language and concepts. As a physical scientist, Paul Davies,
> wisely observed in his latest book:
Of course ID is excluded, as it fails to be scientific. All science can
possibly be accused of is using terms that can confuse some to interpret
this as evidence of intelligent design.
> The fact that biology invokes intelligent design concepts like
> proofreading and quality control in order to make sense of life
> is, to me, very suggestive.
Yes it shows that the use of such concepts is useful in describing the world
around us. Of course that we refer to the world with terms that some
misinterpret to be evidence of design does not mean that there is actual
design? It's just easier to describe nature in terms we are familiar with.
Just like some attaching human characteristics to their pets.
> But if biology is supposed to reduce to nothing
> more than chemistry and physics, why do we need to appeal
> to engineering concepts to make sense of biology?
Because such concepts are quite useful in describing nature around us in
terms we can relate to. That it now has lead some to confuse this with ID
might lead us to be more careful in our language. But language is merely a
description of what we see, that we tend to use 'human terms' to describe it
does not mean that the world is 'alive'.
> Where in
> geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry do we find the
> concepts of proofreading and quality control?
Where do we have concepts of life in these sciences?
> It is often said that ID is not science and has contributed
> nothing to science.
Perhaps it has contributed science to be more careful in the use of
metaphors.
> But how can this be when biology is
> built around ID concepts and language?
Easily. ID tries to extend the metaphors to point to evidence of ID. ID has
cleverly used the use of metaphors to imply ID contributing something to
science.
> For example, in trying to explain feedback and homeostasis
> to new biology students, biologists do not draw from basic
> chemistry or physics. They draw from the manner in which
> furnaces and thermostats are designed to work.
Again the use of metaphors to describe a process does not necessarily means
that the processes are equivalent.
> One of these days, someone is going to blow the whistle on the
> fact that biologists are constantly putting their hands in the ID
> cookie jar.
Nope, ID has cleverly used the metaphors to imply something for which they
have failed to show any scientific support. If you want to blame science for
this, then feel free to do so.