The Intelligent Design (ID) critics are so blinded by their anti-ID worldview they refuse to understand what ID means, leaving them to criticize from ignorance. They are left with rhetorical attacks and misrepresentation of what the design theory is. The plain definition for ID is no harder to understand than the definition for The Theory of Evolution (TOE). For comparison purpose I will describe the definition for TOE and ID. TOE says that all the diversity of life on Earth comes from an abiogenesis process and sharing one or few common ancestors. From this common ancestor through RM&NS, all the complex life-forms arise. ID says that the diversity of life on Earth is designed and bears the signature of intelligence. ID also asserts that the gradualism of RM&NS cannot produce all the diversity that exists in living organisms. The premise of the design theory is to distinguish and separate what organisms are the results of random processes and what are the results of intelligence.
These definitions are not to be confused with the actual empirical science to support these two theories. Both ID and TOE can be thought of as inferences. The difference is that TOE does not rely on empirical evidences to support its inferences. ID seeks to quantify the boundaries of these inferences through the study of existing empirical evidences. Macroevolution is in direct conflict with the premise of the theory of ID, which naturally should receive criticism from ID. ID critics have often mischaracterized ID as nothing more than anti-evolution. That is the logical outcome, but it is not all that ID entails. This is what Darwinism fails to recognize. ID is just trying to quantify evolution and bring it inline with empirical science. ID claims that intelligence can be detected. The epistemology that ID uses to detect intelligence in our observable universe (including Earth) is also applicable in living organisms. The common analogy of this method is SETI. The ID critics are ruling this out a priori, because their alternative is to admit that TOE is built on a fairy tale with no supporting empirical evidence.
ID theorists like Behe have demonstrated how organisms like the bacterial flagellum, blood cascade and vertebrate eye can be use to detect and differential intelligent designed organisms and random processes. Darwinists are not able to dispute the ID’s scientific methods so they resort to mischaracterizations and attempts to silence the ID scientists. Despite their vociferous rhetoric, they have no falsifiable theory of their own to explain how these organisms can have arisen by random processes. Science is supposed to seek out the best explanation that fits reality. In the lack of empirical evidence to support TOE, the Darwinists resort to ad hominem attacks like, ID is a religion disguise as science and there is no theory, no published papers and any such arguments. However, they have not been able to silence the ID theory because they failed to address the basic premise that intelligence is detectable and random processes are limited in capability.
Darwinists have faith in the explanatory power of their theory and with the accumulation of over 150 years of imaginative pathways, their faith is strong. To the Darwinists their TOE can explain just about everything, as far as the general principle of common descent and diversity is concerned. Macroevolution can happen with large unbound populations and small isolated populations. It can occur in hostile and mild environmental conditions. A species can be homologous and analogous, evolution is unrepeatable and repeatable. All this can be explained by genetic mutation, drift, allopatric and various natural selection mechanisms. IOW, it is not falsifiable.
The only problem with all these fancy research and footwork is that there has been no empirical evidence that macroevolution has ever taken place. TOE is a house of straws. No macroevolutionary event has been observed in the wild or in the lab. Some have attempted to put forth some crude examples as macroevolution, but unable to fill the shoes. The excuse for the lack of observable proof for macroevolution has been evolution takes a long time. We cannot observe it in our lifetime. Some are even in denial, claiming that there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution. The question is why are there no experiments to even test this? Is it due to the impossibility or just a committed dogma? I would say the later. The truth is there had been attempts to experimentally reproduce macro-level speciation. Experiments on bacteria and fruit flies have attempted to concentrate the evolutionary mechanics to induce speciation, but both have met with utter failure.
It should not be surprising that when ID comes along and hold evolution’s feet to the fire, it is met with such hostility. Part of ID’s premise is that random processes cannot produce the diversity of life, and empirical evidence does not support the power of evolution. When Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box opens the complexity of life at the biochemical level, it exposed the evolutionary mechanism as an emperor without clothes. It was forcing the Darwinists to actually show empirical evidence of their just so stories. It forced them to show empirical step by step detail of how organisms can arise and their fancy hand waving is no longer sufficient. The reaction of ad hominem and denial should be expected.
I think this is the mindset that some Darwinists have toward ID, which prevents them from having an objective view of science and get mired in religious evolutionary dogma.
Created on 1/2005 – Last Updated on 1/20/2008