Icons of ID: All bark, no bite

| 1 Comment

There still seems to be a confusion amongst ID proponents that ID actually provides an explanation or as some suggest ‘the better/best explanation”. Seems it’s time for an FAQ on ‘Icons of ID’

A good example is the case of ID’s Bulldog whose postings exemplify a myriad of misunderstandings and confusions about both evolutionary theory as well as Intelligent Design. The name is a word play on Huxley who was called Darwin’s Bulldog

Part of the confusion about ID is undoubtably due to the poor definitions, contradictory claims, the equivocation and flawed theoretical foundation of ID but I believe that a large part is due to how ID is presented to its followers. In other words, ID is oversold and underdeveloped. We see a similar problem in Salvador’s attempt to defend or even apply the Explanatory filter or the concept of Complex Specified Information (CSI).

But it is essential for ID”s (short term) survival that it ignores any shortcomings in its foundations, or hides it in equivocation, sloppy definitions and ambiguity.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 116, column 2, byte 13351 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/mach/5.18/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

1 Comment

One of the most frustrating issues with ID is the poor definition of terms and the general use of ‘equivocations’ demonstrated by its supporters.

For example:

ID considered as an area of study (much as Jerry Bauer once claimed) is perfectly legitimate. ID takes place all the time - animal breeding, genetic engineering, building of tools and other mechanical artifacts.

No real objections can be made to this.

But ID can also refer to the ID movement - the religiously motivated, religiously funded, and religiously led political push to emasculate the already questionable American scientific school curriculum.

And then there is yet another flavor of ID: “design by unknown designers at unknown moments in time for unknown purposes”, which is many of the ID advocates are discussing.

So when we say someone is an ID advocate, or an ID critic - what are we referring to? I myself am both an ID critic (anti-political) and an ID advocate (an interesting area of study).

Socrates (by way of Olaf Stapledon) once pointed out that without clear definition of terms, clear thought is impossible.

Given that, I’d say that no one is thinking clearly about ID.…

Although I give more credit to those generally regarded as the ‘critics’ - they at least recognize the terminological problem.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on December 10, 2004 6:59 PM.

Icons of ID: Equivocation on design was the previous entry in this blog.

The Bathroom Wall is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter