I apologize to James Hall for using his phrase in describing what Robert Crowther, and other Intelligent Design proponents, seem to be involved in when they are objecting to the simple fact that Intelligent Design is a straightforward argument from ignorance.
The problem is that ID proponents have used equivocating language which has led to much confusion amongst its followers. I cannot blame Crowther for taking serious the claims of his DI fellows, but merely claiming that ID is not an argument from ignorance is merely begging the question.
While it is relatively straightforward to reach the conclusion that ID is an argument from ignorance, it does require some careful analysis of how various terminologies are being used by ID proponents.
So what is the design inference? Simple, it is the set theoretic complement of regularity and chance, or in other words, that which remains once we have eliminated known processes. Note that ID provides no positive argument but merely refers to our ignorance as ‘designed’.
So what about the complexity argument? We see complexity in the world around us and ‘invariably this complexity can be traced to a designer’? What’s wrong with this argument? Well, for starters, complexity in ID - speak is nothing more than the negative base 2 logarithm of our ignorance. In other words, IFF we can explain something then the complexity disappears. So why would ID use such equivocating language?
In other words, ID’s argument is that we see a lot of things that we cannot yet explain. To conclude ‘thus designed’ is not different from our forefathers assigning earthquakes, solar eclipses and other unexplained events to deities.
So next time you hear an ID proponent argue that ID is not just about ignorance, ask them how they explain the bacterial flagella.
So perhaps Crowther can enlighten us: How does ID explain the bacterial flagella? Oh, I forgot, ID is not in the business of answering such pathetic requests…
Must be hard to be communications director with so many ID proponents making such silly comments.