Mirroring other conflicts in some ways:
In replying to me, Williamson ignored all the scientists I pointed to, quite apart from our friend and colleague Michael Behe, who question Darwinism or affirm design. But “Where are the ID scientists?” is basically the challenge that Williamson issued in the first place. Did he not read what I wrote in response before replying to me? More likely, rather than admit he was mistaken in characterizing intelligent design, there is a kind of self-induced blindness going on.
This is about ego, not science. Of course, an allergy to conceding error is not unique to ID opponents, but as I said, it is typical of them.
Update: For more on the exchange, by Wesley Smith and Michael Behe, see also:
- Smith, “Stifling the Intelligent Design Debate Is Bad Science”
- Behe, “On Intelligent Design, Do Your Own Homework. Make Up Your Own Mind.”
- Klinghoffer, “Michael Behe’s Marshall McLuhan Moment”
This all adds up, I suppose, to a virtual symposium on mulish prejudice and ignorance.David Klingoffer, “Self-Induced Blindness: Round 3 with Kevin Williamson” at Evolution News and Science Today:
Williamson lives in a time when people don’t need to know correct facts so much as correct positions. Klinghoffer mentions the Covington High School story. The astonishing thing about it is, from the perspective of say, how media might have behaved decades ago, very little conventional verification was done until much later. Notice, I didn’t say “very little fact-checking”; I mean something much more basic and less polarizing
Popular Darwinism thrives in that atmosphere because even to raise problems with a Cool theory. however serious the problems, brands one as unCool. You are never supposed to have problems with a Cool theory. Let’s hope the spread of the attitude doesn’t continue to the sciences.
See also: “Rube-Bait”: Kevin Williamson vs. David Klinghoffer: Round 2
and
Intelligent design as “rube-bait” and David Klinghoffer’s response Klinghoffer offers his vid, The Information Enigma by way of rebuttal. But rebuttal almost misses the point. Today’s Darwinism is a snipe on Twitter, a swipe in passing, a slogan on a whiteboard, a well-practiced rant – not something it would make sense to ask anyone to support with reference to facts or coherent ideas. Williamson’s got that right. No arguing with fashion.
Follow UD News at Twitter!