Intelligent Design

Klinghoffer reviews Collins

Spread the love

David Klinghoffer reviews Francis Collins’s new book The Language of God:

. . . Collins’s book rejects Intelligent Design as an “argument from personal incredulity.” That argument, in his telling, would go this way: We don’t understand exactly how the Darwinian mechanism could have produced certain aspects of biological information; therefore, a Designer must have done it. I believe Collins misrepresents Intelligent Design, and it appears that he hasn’t followed the latest rounds in the scientific debate. But never mind. Let’s assume he’s right and ask: If Darwinism is the true resolution of the “mystery of mysteries,” where does that leave God? . . .

Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/012/542pbkmy.asp

Incredulity suggests disbelief in the face of overwhelming evidence. But if there is no evidence period that the Darwinian mechanism can produce certain forms of biological complexity, then where’s the incredulity? In place of incredulity we should be talking about skepticism in the face of overwhelmingly inflated claims by Darwinists?

7 Replies to “Klinghoffer reviews Collins

  1. 1
    mike1962 says:

    “‘We don’t understand exactly how the Darwinian mechanism could have produced certain aspects of biological information; therefore, a Designer must have done it.’ I believe Collins misrepresents Intelligent Design”

    Yes he indeed does. At least for me. As an agnostic and natural skeptic, I am friendly to ID, not because of incredulity, but because of A) the utter failure of MET/NDE to explain to me life’s origin and evolution on the micro scale, and B) I have an open mind. As Dr Dembski apparently said above, my view is skeptical, not incredulous. Unproven just-so stories do not fill the gaps.

    Moreover, on a positive note, the most I learn, the more I have come to suspect that the DNA/cellular system will ultimately reveal a super complex operating system in action. And it will be ID friendly minds who will find this because they will be the only ones looking for it. Time will tell.

  2. 2
    Scott says:

    mike: I agree with you that the deeper we delve, the clearer it’s going to become that both variation and speciation are driven by quantum level programming beyond anything we could conceptualize.

  3. 3
    leebowman says:

    I wonder how Richard Dawkins feels regarding Collins having a belief in God, while citing Dawkins’ ‘PIC’ (Personal Incredulity Canard) almost verbatim. But then, he is a biologist, and they all seem to say that.

    But I don’t think that Collins can on the one hand say that God lit the fuse for the Big Bank, then programmed life and mankind to evolve, then receded from the scene, at least as far as performing a stepwise creative process, and deny Intelligent Design. The beauty and awe in nature that he mentions as having solidified his faith also goes against an accidental naturalistic viewpoint. So maybe we do have an advocate.

    For some personal glimpses (and a fine tuning of his philosophical views), go here for an interesting recent interview:
    http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/07/collins/
    http://www.salon.com/books/int.....print.html

  4. 4
    Smidlee says:

    Collins simply believes “We don’t understand (imagine) exactly how the Darwinian mechanism could have produces certain (most) aspects of biological information, therefore, Evolution still must done it. Evolution must have use supernatural selection and planned random mutation (God/evolution made it look as if it was random but it really wasn’t just to fool us)

  5. 5
    John A. Davison says:

    I too see no evidence for a living God and the PEH does not require one. We are the final products of a completely determined scenario. Henceforth it will continue to be all downhill.

    “The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
    Albert Einstein

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

  6. 6
    tribune7 says:

    But if there is no evidence period that the Darwinian mechanism can produce certain forms of biological complexity, then where’s the incredulity?
    That’s one of the big questions that led me to evo-skepiticism.

  7. 7
    John A. Davison says:

    It has been experimentally established that selection can do nothing more than produce intra-specific varieties. For many life forms even that is quite impossible because they may offer nothing to select.

    “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
    John A. Davison

Leave a Reply