Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Further to Larry Moran’s claims about ID proponents’ selective hyperskepticism

arroba Email

Let’s take the formation of bacterial flagella as a good illustration of how they use selective hyperskepticism. They begin with the unshakeable assumption that gods exist, that that they must have created life.

Answered in an excellent and scholarly way by our own Vince Torley here:

2. Intelligent Design does not “begin with the unshakeable assumption that gods exist,” as Professor Moran alleges. We don’t even begin with the assumption that a Designer exists; rather, it is something we attempt to argue for, on the basis of probabilities. Professor Moran should know us better than that.

Actually, Moran doesn’t need to know better than that, because a professorship means that he is accountable to no authority whatever for making any sense.

Here are – O’Leary for News’ thoughts on the subject, originally put up at the ID Facebook page:

“Intelligent Design does not “begin with the unshakeable assumption that gods exist,” as Professor Moran alleges.” No indeed.

It begins with the evidence that the universe and life forms show for design. Even Dawkins admits that it looks designed; he claims it isn’t really.

No one claims it doesn’t even *look* designed (except maybe some airheads on TV but never mind them).

As Sri has pointed out, ID doesn’t even assume the necessity of a designer. Strictly speaking, an Eastern concept like the Way or pantheism might in the end be correct. If all we have to go on is that design is real, we can’t rule that out.

However, Westerners tend to be monotheists, so we attribute the design to God. But it’s important to get the order right. We already believed in God so we attribute the design to God. If you read the Book of Genesis, you will see that Abraham and Sarah began to believe in God seriously because they had a relationship with him, not because they thought much about science issues. Similarly, in the New Testament, Paul says that anyone who fails to see God’s design in nature is probably hopeless at understanding any expectations God might have about how they would live (Romans 1:20-21). But then Paul moves on. Because he wants to talk about sin and what to do about it.

The way people like Moran misrepresent this stuff creates the impression that design in nature is a key motivator for most Westerners’ belief in God. It is mostly a background issue because design only points to itself. It doesn’t necessarily tell you much about the designer.

A great Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis, put it like this: You can tell much more about a person from listening to his conversation than from seeing a house he has built.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Eric, given how easily he was caught out, I opt for incompetent liar. But it's worse than being a liar, it's willful disregard for truth. Now, for someone who is supposed to be a scientist or a teacher, that would seem to present a real quandary. Mung
Old hands of ID who cut their teeth on Denton's 'Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" back in the 1980's may appreciate this article: Biologist Michael Denton Revisits His Argument that Evolution Is a "Theory in Crisis" Casey Luskin October 22, 2014 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/biologist_micha090551.html bornagain77
It is difficult to characterize Moran's statement as anything other than a bald-faced lie. He is not new to this debate; he has been corrected on multiple occasions and has had plenty of opportunity to understand the issues. Either he is incompetent or is lying. Which is it, Dr. Moran? Eric Anderson

Leave a Reply