Re: Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win

“ID has already made its peace with natural selection and the irrefutable aspects of Darwinism.” – Douglas Kern

If you please, I would like to hear anyone’s opinion on how ID has done this. In particular, what aspects of Darwin’s theory are irrefutable according to mainstream IDists? This is asked since ‘dissenting from Darwin’ appears to be an ID favourite pastime. Darwin would likely shy away from all of the attention they’re giving him, as if his theory provides “the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life.” Secondly, how is ‘divine selection’ (or non-human selection) consistent with ‘natural selection?’ I have asked leaders of the IDM without receiving a satisfactory answer, just more spin; sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

“The entire edifice of Darwinian theory comes crashing down with even a single credible demonstration of design in any living thing.” – Douglas Kern

That seems a bit excessive, and, of course, polemical. Doesn’t it? Or perhaps Mr. Kern was speaking rhetorically? Design or Darwin, Design or Chance, Evolution or Evolution?

“As superior intellects strive to understand the metaphysics of information, they will find the information-oriented arguments of ID increasingly sensible and appealing. ID will fit nicely into the emerging worldview of tomorrow's intellectual elite.” – Douglas Kern

Information, in-for-mation, in-forma-tion…yeah! We’re in a so-called ‘information age,’ after all. But why must scientists in America, or even around the world for that matter, cow-tow to certain myopic IDists who insist ‘intelligent design’ is a scientific revolution in the making? ‘Tomorrow’s intellectual elite?’ Isn’t this an example of selling the farm a bit too early? After all, M. Castells, D. Bell and Neil Postman are as much influential on ‘information age’ conversations as the arguments erected by any known ID theorist. And if another theory comes along that would explain evolution’s legitimate topos of belonging-ness more scientifically, philosophically or theologically than ID does, ID will fall by the wayside into relative obscurity. That’s a possibility too, which this author apparently doesn’t consider.

‘a more expansive view of science than the current elite’ – Douglas Kern

Yes, this is clearly a purposeful insult to all scientists today who maintain their integrity by following the evidence where it leads and who do not require a Pajaro-made ID theory to lead them. This lawyer is clearly not set to expand science with legalistic logic. Sorry, I don’t consider this an 'interesting analysis,' just more posturing by another invested observer.

“as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.” – Douglas Kern

And man will also try to make God in his own image, but that doesn’t make it right or true or good. How about we substitute ‘human beings’ for ‘man’ and promote true equality, instead of incorrect chauvinism? Then again, we’ll have to distinguish intelligence in machines from intelligence in humans from divine intelligence according to the concept-of-choice known as ‘intelligent’ design.

“Don't look so surprised, evolutionists – a brain attuned to order and design is a brain more likely to survive.” – Douglas Kern

Most IDists accept one form or another of ‘evolutionary theory,’ whether it’s the survival of the surviving or the fittest or the struggle or the variation, adaptation, fitness pressures, direct action of the environment, etc. The argument against evolutionists (i.e. anti-evolutionism) is partial, incomprehensive and reflects the situated knowledge of the speaker making the criticism more than it presents any legitimate attack on evolutionary theory in natural science itself. Otherwise, we could watch IDists having a white-out party, cancelling out the word ‘evolution’ from their collectively jumbled dictionaries.

“Hammers tend to find nails, screwdrivers tend to find screws, and the human mind tends to find design.” – Douglas Kern

Hiccup…hammers and screwdrivers are soon to be deemed ‘intelligent’ by such logic!? This ID stuff is almost humorous when spoken about this way. Leave it to a lawyer to assess the topic in a win-lose situation, as if better theoretical frameworks are mainly about competition.

There are certainly some supporters of ‘intelligent design’ (ID) who are legitimately searching for new ways to see, hear and approach some of the problems we face in our scientific and theological accounts of the world and what continues beyond it. That should be applauded and evolution not made immune from criticism and careful scrutiny either scientifically, philosophically or theologically. On the other hand, when ID is not rigorously philosophical but rather apparently politically motivated, it obscures rather than aids clarifying communication.

Hopefully we can still be polite.

Kind regards,

G. Arago

janice matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:Interesting analysis. ~ Janice
Why Intelligent Design Is Going to Win By Douglas Kern
http://www.techcentralstation.com/100705C.html

                
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Sat Oct 8 19:08:21 2005