Recently, Joshua Gidney linked to a piece by philosopher Robin Collins on why design in nature is not part of science.
Really, it’s a misleading question that enables academics to huff and puff casuistries, while ducking the key question, as follows: If the evidence clearly points to design in nature (fine-tuning, irreducible complexity, etc.), must science refuse to acknowledge that and accept any alternative as a starting point?
The price is high.
Claims for Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation within the genome) must be accepted, even though they defy any meaningful relationship to probability. So probability must go too.
Claims for the random evolution of the human mind lead swiftly to the idea that human consciousness is an evolved illusion, which makes all conclusions of science or even mathematics moot.
The cumulative damage includes the inability to fend off the social justice warriors’ assault on science education (objectivity is sexist, algebra is racist, etc.).
The outcome is that science in the relevant areas reduces itself to accumulating evidence for propositions that will slowly make science untenable and undoable.
Vast numbers are willing to pay the price and at least they chose it. It was not forced on them.
A Swedish math prof put it best,
After reading Leisola and Witt’s book, it is clear that a paradigm shift is needed in order to explain the origin and diversity of life, from chemical and Darwinian evolution towards a design explanation. This raises the question of whether the research community is willing to follow the evidence and allow such a shift to take place. If not, there is a great risk that the judgement of future generations will be hard. However, such a change will not come easily, since ultimately our worldview is at stake. – Ola Hössjer, Professor of Mathematical Statistics at Stockholm University
* See also: Swedish math prof’s review of Heretic captures a key point
At Psychology Today: Opponent asks, does ID have a valid point about agency? It goes downhill from there. If I were a Darwinian, I would be embarrassed by this stuff.
External testicles another instance of bad design? Oddly, in making such a dramatic claim (“there is no good reason that sperm development has to work best at lower temperatures”), Lents does not quote any expert on the subject of temperature and sperm development.
Does Nathan Lents, author of a “bad design” book really teach biology? A doctor looks at his claims about the human sinuses