Replies

What theory?

Darwin's theory of evolution is the last of the great 19th century mystery religions. And as we speak it is now following Freudianism and Marxism into the nether regions, and I'm quite sure that Freud, Marx, and Darwin are commiserating one with the other, in the dark dungeon where discarded gods gather. The problem facing us...with a magnificent body of theoretical accomplishments in physics and mathematics, and a very rich body of descriptive material in biology, is to come to an understanding that when it comes to the large global issues that Darwin's theory is intended to address, we simply do not have a clue. This is a daunting admission to make, but if we're intellectually honest, we should make it. The mechanism that Darwin proposed, that of random search or a stochastic shuffle is known to be inadequate in every domain in which it's applied. It's known to be inadequate in linguistics, and it's certainly inadequate when it comes to the overwhelming complexity of living forms. There is no reason on earth to believe that this mechanism is adequate to the task that it sets itself.
If it should come to pass in the fullness of time that we discover that there is no explanation for life, we will have to accept it. If it should come to pass that we discover in the fullness of time that the only explanation for life is that it is a process designed for transcendental purposes by a transcendental figure, we will have to accept that too. And if that should come to pass, I would like to ask, who among us will genuinely feel diminished?
David Berlinski

I'm a little late, but I'll take a shot:

#1: One problem is that the IDers have failed to concretely state what it is in scientific terms. If scientists critique one definitions they claim it's a strawman attack because this other definition is the right one.

#2: ID is stealth creationism. This has been clearly stated by the Discovery Institute itself in the "Wedge Strategy." Here are some selected quotes from them:

Goal "To replace materialistic [scientific] explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to the truth of the Bible and then the question of sin and finally introduced to Jesus."

#3: Nice turnaround on the "God of the gaps." Scientists are losing this because they're not as good at rhetoric. Scientists have closed LOTS of gaps. They fixed up Newton's questions about planetary orbit (the most famous "God of the gaps" instance), and quite a few in Evolution. At least scientists know they can say "I don't know," which is the honest thing to do.

#4: The problem is with the IDers not being able to put together a paper that passes the sniff test at the journals. Please remove the tin foil hat.

#5: Actually, scientists who make wild claims are most often attacked by other scientists, not the public. IDers are sad their newborn "theory" is getting hammered and feel persecuted -- well wake up, this is science's vetting process, get used to it. Einstein himself attacked quantum theory, but it's still going strong and has even crossed into practical application.