PvM posted Entry 2706 on November 10, 2006 12:56 PM.
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/2698
Jonathan Witt, fellow for the Discovery Institute’s Center for the renewal of science and culture, has written a review of Francis Collins’ book “ The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief”.
Witt objects to Collins’ interpretation of Intelligent Design, arguing that like many before him, Collins just does not get it… Or does he?
It seems that despite the significant efforts from the Media Complaints division and despite the many efforts to educate its faithful about what Intelligent Design is and isn’t the message that any references to creationism has to be avoided has yet to get through to the masses. In addition, it seems that to most scientists the fact that ID is a gap argument based on negative argumentation, is also self evident.
So what is an ID activist like West to do but ‘complain’ that nobody seems to get it.
But this is not the case. Design theorists in biology do offer an extensive critique of Darwinian theory, but they also offer positive evidence for intelligent design.
I’d say, most people are getting it and have come to the simple realization that ID is scientifically vacuous, and that it lacks positive evidence and explanations. In fact, areas where science is successful in applying design inferences do not rely on the limited approach chosen by the ID activists. In other words, next time an ID activist argues that ID is the better explanation or that ID is based on a positive argument, ask them how ID explains a particular ‘designed’ event or system.
Marvel at the response which invariably seems to take the form of: We need no … evidence, we need not pathways, we need no mechanisms… All we need is the Truth and we all know what that is.
When that does not convince you, ask yourself the simple question: What has ID contributed to our scientific understanding of said ‘designed’ systems?
The answer may shock many a faithful…
Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.