Another response to Darrick Dean

Back in February, I responded to a post On Darrick Dean's Science Watch blog regarding Intelligent Design. As is his want, Darrick responded and then closed the thread to further comments.

I've decided to take the opportunity of answering his response here...

PTET: [If science points to a designer, then that's where it leads. Except that ID doesn't.]

Darrick Dean: It does, you just ignore the evidence.

Does it? Darrick doesn't say how. And, as demonstrated in this post, Darrick doesn't seem to know what ID actually says...

PTET: [All it does is claim that life or certain life mechanisms are supposedly "too complex" to have evolved "naturally". ]

Darrick Dean: If you can’t tell the difference between design and chance, how do you operate in society?

This is a false dilemma. Many things in the world are not "designed" and (like evolution) do not occur solely through "chance". An example is the way languages change over time.

In normal day to day experience, we use of previous experience of what we know has been designed to infer design. ID posits that where we do not have a full explanation of how something occurs "naturally" we must assume that it could not have occurred naturally. That is ridiculous.

PTET: [The vast majority of earth & life scientists, including professional biologists, don't agree. ]

Darrick Dean: Isn’t that the opinion poll/population fallacy?

That's Special Pleading on Darrick's part. What does he use to support ID? The opinions of a group of scientists, mathematicians and philosophers. He argues from authority. All I wish to do is point out that the vast majority of authorities reject ID as science.

PTET: [The IDists can't point to any *positive* evidence in favour of ID]

Darrick Dean: Actually they do, you just refuse to look at it.

Actually they don't - but then Darrick, for all he runs a blog on the subject, doesn't seem to know what ID actually says.

PTET: [You repeat the oft-told lie that evolution is necessarily related to atheism.]

Darrick Dean: Atheism requires naturalism to be correct. Deal with it.

But not all people who believe in evolution are Atheists. Moreover, atheism predates evolutionary theory by thousands of years. Finally, atheism like science does not preclude the supernatural - it just expects there to be some way of verifying what that supernatural is. Remember - ID theory explicitly states that it can tell nothing about the nature of a designer. It is therefore useless as science.

PTET: [Most Christian Scientists and more importantly most Christian biologists accept that evolution occurred as mainstream science states.]

Darrick Dean: Says the teacher union/NSF talking points?

Says these Christians themselves. Darrick's continued avoidance of this point is simply dishonest.

PTET: [ that science is "biased" because it only looks for "natural" causes & effects.]

Darrick Dean: Funny, I never said that. Whose page are you reading?

Erm, the pages where Darrick bemoans, time after time, that scientists ignore ID? In any event, I note Darrick's position: science is not biased against non-natural causes & effects. (What he means by that exactly, I do not know).

PTET: [Can you name *one* scientific or technological advance *ever* the entire history of the world that was *not* based on "natural" causes or effects?Of course you can't.]

Darrick Dean: Yes I can: Origin of man. Genetics proves it. And naturalists discovered it. But you wouldn’t know that?

What utter gibberish. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as understood my mainstream science. They do not support ID. But as ever, Darrick prefers the authority of the tiny minority of scientists who share his philosophical & theological prejudices...




UPDATE 26-MAY-05: Read about Darrick's response to this post.