A commenter who goes by “Mirrortothesun” writes:
Here’s the problem with every single post on this site, including this one. They are all examples of motivated reasoning. The authors start with what they wish were the truth– that evolution is false– and then they look desperately for evidence that their wish is true. They construct arguments around that wish. Ultimately it is just intellectual dishonesty and propaganda, alas.
Perhaps Mirror has never read evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin’s famous “divine foot” screed. Here it is:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Mirror accuses ID proponents of being committed to an a priori assumption and interpreting all data in the context of that assumption. Perhaps that is the case with some ID proponents. Personally, I am open to Darwinism. Indeed, I would love to be a Darwinist. It would make my life so much easier if I could go along with the herd instead of constantly swimming upstream. Alas, I cannot handle the necessary faith commitments.
Here is the point of my post. Mirror’s comment is laden with unintended irony; for he seems to be blissfully unaware of the close-minded dogmatism of many Darwinists. Only those bad ID types have a priori assumptions. Darwinists bravely follow the evidence wherever it leads. His naivety would be amusing if it were not so common . . . and so dangerous.