Thursday, January 30, 2014

Sympathy for Intelligent Design

One of the things that keeps my sympathy for ID alive is the systematic failure of its critics to present the idea as ID's most noteworthy proponents do. Each and every time without fail ID gets presented as "The creationist claim that science can show God zapped the bacterial flagellum magically and that science can prove this" or permutations thereof. Always, always there is this shoe-horning of 'creationist' or 'supernatural' or 'miracle' into the claim, or at the very least something like 'a denial that evolution ever takes place'.

Call ID wrong. Call it fatally flawed. But when critics are so petrified of so much as honestly portraying the actual claims made by ID proponents, I find myself forced to defend them again and again.

5 comments:

Mr. Green said...

But when critics are so petrified of so much as honestly portraying the actual claims made by ID proponents, I find myself forced to defend them again and again.

I've said the same thing myself. If ID were half as bad as its opponents (sometimes including theists) say, they wouldn't have to misrepresent it utterly every time.

(Plus there's the fact that if you apply the central idea of ID to anything other than biological evolution of the species or cosmology, it would never even occur to anybody to question it. Seriously, just try picking Dawkin's pocket on payday and wait for him to wax enthusiastically about the power of "undirected motions" as you brushed past him to accumulate his wallet into your pocket.)

Crude said...

Yeah, I really have lost count the number of times ID was portrayed as 'the theory that evolution is false and that God needed to use miracles to make the bacterial flagellum - and science can show this!' Ugh.

BenYachov said...

My view toward ID since discovering Thomism is one of benign Apathy.

Also only Thomists are fit to critique ID.

Crude said...

You seem downright hostile more than apathetic, Ben. One thing I've long said is that I don't believe most atheist arguments can touch classical theism. What sets me apart from the classical theists is that I don't believe the arguments do much damage to personal theism either.

BenYachov said...

>You seem downright hostile more than apathetic, Ben.

I see your confusion here so I will clarify. I am apathetic to the idea that God might have directly intervened supernaturally to artifice some aspect of biological life vs believing some natural evolutionary process (under the guidance always of Divine Providence) is solely responsible for all biological phenomena.

Naturally I still HATE theistic personalism like I hate idolatry. I would never deny that I have a reputation to uphold.:-)

But that having been said even I acknowledge some Gru Atheist criticisms of some Theistic Personalist views are bogus.

The Gnus can't take the big guy on the block(Classic Theism) & they barely hold their own against his no good smaller weaker half -brother(theistic personalism).

Cheers.