Intelligent Design Scoffings

Opinion Times ^ | 8/8/05 | Jim Pfaff

[HallowThisGround]

"When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest. " --Proverbs 29:9
"The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But a wise man is he who listens to counsel. " --Proverbs 12:15

(Pulling out my best Andy Rooney impression) Did you ever wonder why scientests with a political agenda consistently scoff at scientific evidence with evidential hubris? If you're wondering what in the world I am trying to say (and many do wonder--believe me!), it's this: there is no more amazing proof of foolishness than someone who arrogantly assumes he has all the facts. The raging of some in the scientific community who refuse to budge in light of solid theories of physical origins which point to an creator amounts to hubris. It's basically game of "my not yet empirically substantiated theory is better than your not yet empirically substantiated theory."

David Limbaugh wonders why all the fuss about discussing the flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution:

Don't academics purport to champion free and open inquiry? What, then, are they so afraid of regarding the innocuous introduction into the classroom of legitimate questions concerning Darwinism?

Their defensiveness toward challenges to their dogma is inexplicable unless you understand their attitude as springing from a worldview steeped in strong, secular predispositions that must be guarded with a blind religious fervor.

Indeed, it appears many Darwinists are guilty of precisely that of which they accuse ID proponents: having a set of preconceived assumptions that taint their scientific objectivity.

It's gone to the point where some papers' editorials are laced with political arguments which make out those who believe a Creator is behind the works of nature seem like bumbling fools while stumbling through mere hypothesis informed by Darwinian theory and not empirical example. This is happening even to the point of scoffing at independent research funding which has led to new understanding of origins.

David Limbaugh is right: we need to open up the debate. It is implied that empirical evidence arises out of open discussion about not only theories which on their face seem plausible but also those which are presumed to be false. As it is, though, many in the scientific community are married to assumption, not empiricism, and have been given enough political cover to discredit those who seek to expand knowledge beyond a theory developed by visiting a unique set of islands off the coast of South America.

[billybudd]

I still haven't gotten an answer from any ID proponent as to why "intelligent design" and evolutionary theory are mutually exclusive. Evolution doesn't even address the issue of a creator or intent. It simply addresses mechanics. And that's precisely what intelligent design theory doesn't address. I haven't seen in any of the literature or commentary on ID any theory of the physical process by which creation happened. I mean, literally, what was the process, beyond "God did it?"

[HallowThisGround]

I haven't seen in any of the literature or commentary on ID any theory of the physical process by which creation happened. I mean, literally, what was the process, beyond "God did it?"

That's the weakness of ID and gives the scientific community fodder for criticism, but from a philosophical perspective, it is a sound critique of the compilation of scientific evidence.