I was using the Laughlin quote to criticize the Neo-Darwinian ToE. I’ll leave it to the reader to decide whether such criticism is equivalent to “supporting ID.”
I actually think it is. But that doesn’t mean that I misused the quote in any way. Am I only allowed to criticize the ToE if I am not supporting ID?!
You are using the quote to criticize the Neo-Darwin ToE. Dr. Laughlin's uses the quote to criticize people who abuse ToE. There is a significant difference.
Am I only allowed to criticize the ToE if I am not supporting ID?!
Certainly. Since you are citicizing the ToE do you have an alternative explaination for life that does not derive from ToE?
It would seem you are not allowed to criticize the ToE if you use any part of the observation of an advocate of the ToE in support of any portion of your argument. It’s apparently sufficient that one not be an approved member of the ToE brotherhood to excite their wrath (be not despairing, oh ye sisters of the order, you are included in the brotherhood with full privileges). We must believe, in fact, that no one is to be allowed to criticize the ToE under any circumstance, but such a blatant proscription is intellectually indefensible, so more subtle representations must be put forward. Hence the argument ‘out-of-context,’ which has the added virtue of being a frequently indulged transgression, thereby providing the cover of reasonableness for the accusation. This is a common phenomena. Dispute a prelate or a mullah: ‘blasphemy!’ Contradict a king or a caliph: ‘treason!’ So common, in fact, that I have long thought of it as not a religious trait, nor a political trait, nor a philosophical trait, but simply and utterly a human trait.
’Tis an ancient and oft told tale, replete with a lineup of the usual suspects: the scrambling of meanings and terms; changing the subject; ignoring the crucial question; shifting the burden; invoking the automatic disqualifier; positing a distinction possessing no difference; claiming inherited superiority; etc, etc, etc.