Brilliant response Bill! BRAVO Specifically, Darwinists are poor scientists who have a habit of jumping to conclusions. Darwinians declared that 95% of our DNA are junk when they actually lack the understanding of how it works. Darwinians complains that certain biological systems cannot be designed, because they are less than optimal. When in fact it is the Darwinian preconceived understanding that is less than optimal as in the case of the inverted retina.
Secondly, Darwinians are so bothered by the gaps of knowledge in ID they don’t see the plank in their own eyes. “Given that his theory of evolution could equally explain both possibilities, goose bumps provide no evidence for evolution one way or the other.” IMHO, another way of saying the same thing is the Darwinian theory is vacuous in the Popperian sense. After 150 years of Darwinism, there is still no solid empirical evidence of natural selection as David Berlinski has highlighted here.
Finally, there is one more flaw to Pinker and Krauthammer’s argument. It’s natural to think that living things must be the handiwork of a designer. But it was also natural to think that the sun went around the earth. Overcoming naive impressions to figure out how things really work is one of humanity’s highest callings.
When Pinker and Krauthammer use the mistakes from history as an argument against ID, they are really criticizing themselves. The mistake of geocentricity was based on an erroneous theory to explain certain observations. When we finally have sufficient data and innovative thinking to explain and test that data, geocentricity was refuted. This type of analogy actually is more representative of Darwinism. Science is opening the black boxes of biology and we are accumulating more and more data against the religious mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. The problem with Darwinism is not ID is intuitive but as we fill the knowledge gaps of biology, Darwinism is being revealed as the emperor without clothes.