Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Intelligent design and its enemies


Looking at the big picture over the past seven years (when I first started to take the intelligent design controversy seriously), one item stands out: The behaviour of the promoters of Darwinian evolution.

It is exactly what one might predict of people who think they don’t have a good case.

First, they suppress alternative cases, as I wrote earlier, as follows:

Doubters who dare to offer facts in support of their views are hounded in a thoroughly unprofessional way.

Allegedly Christian institutions abet the persecution because they need to suck up to elite atheists in order to think well of themselves. (I confess I do not know why. It is inconceivable to me how anyone could take those people’s opinions seriously, given that the entire twentieth century has been a vast disconfirmation of same.)

The idea that the universe shows evidence of intelligent design is treated as a threat to human rights.

Second, I was surprised by the sheer, gratuitous and usually profane hatred of anyone who thinks that the case for (or against) design can be argued in a civilized manner. If you need evidence, go here, here, and here. This is the confidence of the dockside bully, not the confidence of the person who has a solution in his jacket pocket.

And lastly, I was surprised at how both evidence for and interest in design has grown over the past seven years, despite all the attempts to suppress it. Seven years ago, when I Googled “intelligent design”, I would get some thousands of entries, which included ergonomic desks and such. Now there are over 5.5 million entries. That is partly the growth of the Internet, but surely not all.

So, obviously, the ID guys must have something going for them.

By the way, while I am here, why not shoot the works?: Here’s why the freaking out over the “Christian Right” is mainly
bunk. And here’s why abstinence education is a good thing.

I'm not sure a Google hit count is the best way to measure impact. Seven years ago (the time-frame Denyse uses), the ID movement's peer-reviewed journal, Origins and Design, was just shutting down, and the new journal, PISCID, was just getting started. Yet PISCID seems either shut down or dormant, and I don't think any ID journal has arisen since. I think that to have a real impact on the science, the ID movement has to sponsor more scientific research, including sustaining a journal over the long haul. larrynormanfan
What ID has going for it is that it is a common sense type of view point based on observation and logic. It is thus very easy to see as true without coercion. The dark side knows this and so perpetually attempt to cloud the public mind rather than being honest. This they do quite effectively at times through double talk, scientific sounding just-so stories, outright lies about biology and the fossil record etc. But anyone reflecting on Dawkins' explain-it-away invention, "designoids", or Crick's statement, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.", must see that such statements would never be made if the design were not so conspicuously obvious. It is a salient fact indeed that humans can discern between design and randomness intuitively. If it were not so we would never have needed to invent such words. Borne

Leave a Reply