[DoctorMichael]

"..........The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is dumb.........."

Well put and succinct.

[P-Marlowe]

According to ID, the world perked along perfectly fine for several billion years according to the rules of physics. Over most of space-time the naturalists have it basically right, things just sort of go the way they seem they should. Then, a couple of billion years ago, along came The Designer, not itself the product of those processes. It showed up and decided to take a bunch of these otherwise perfectly natural chemicals and put them together to make bacteria and then designed in a replication system. Then it left it alone for another several million years and decided, "Hey, I've got these bacteria around, let's collect them into these other things." And, so forth.

That't the first time I've heard that theory. If that is the theory of intelligent design, then I would agree that the theory is at least as stupid as the author of this article.

[MEGoody]

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is dumb.

LOL So much for scientific objectivity.

[tophat9000]

mark to reply

[vpintheak]

Typical elitist, humanist garbage.

[Ohioan]

The fellow makes a very long argument--in which he tries to artificially compartmentalize issues--but appears to miss the essential point, throughout. While we may not understand the complexity of a design, is no argument against there being such a design. That without there being a design, what we do know would make even less sense, should tilt scientific thought towards continued pursuit of the idea of the design.

That said, takes absolutely nothing away from the writers' compartmentalized pursuit of more compartmentalizable issues--as for example his example of Termites. However, the writer is clearly not the one to carry out that pursuit. His preconceptions are too obvious:

Given that the termites are clearly not sentient,

While I am not about to invite a colony in for an after dinner discussion, I do not understand how one can produce evidence of actual intelligence--however specialized--and then conclude, arbitrarily that they have no perceptive abilities. That is cut from the same philosophic error that has led so many to deny the reasoning ability of other species of mammals.

William Flax

[cookcounty]

Of course "ID" is philosophy rather than science. So is "big E" evolution*.

* Big E evolution: The assertion that evolutionary processes are adequate to explain all living things.

[DennisR]

"The author is Senior Lecturer in the Philosophy Department at Loyola University, Chicago."

Scary. Very scary.

[Dumb_Ox]

This is one of the better opinion pieces I've seen on the subject. I'd never thought I'd have a good word for de Chardin, but in comparison with the incredibly awkward ID movement he does look good.

I'll also plug Edward T. Oakes' theological takedown of ID Reviewing The Wedge of Truth and follow-up correspondence

[LanaTurnerOverdrive]

Flawed Philosophy of Intelligent Design

Redundant headline.

[bmwcyle]

Read tag line.