Dec 092005

There is one thing that always bugs me about ID opponents: They often present pure speculation, based on absolutely no hard evidence, as established fact.

For example, you’ll hear, “The way evolution produces complex, functionally integrated biological machinery is through a process called co-option. Here’s how it works…” They should be honest and say, “Some biologists speculate that biological components that served other functions can be co-opted to assemble new machinery that performs a new function. However, there is no hard evidence that this process actually takes place, and no detailed, testable proposals for how random mutations could engineer such a process.”

Of course, they also always leave out an explanation for the hard stuff. Where did the assembly instructions come from? They too must be irreducibly complex, since a partially assembled motor is of no use even if all the parts are available.

I sometimes wonder if these people are actually aware of what they are doing. Perhaps — because they are convinced that such a process _must_ take place, because the underlying theory _has_ to be true — they have deluded themselves into thinking they are providing facts and explanations instead of unsubstantiated speculation.

 Posted by at 11:25 am
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
16 years ago

Dear Gil Dodgen,

Bright observations, and welcome!

Some extreme comedies of ‘evolutionism‘ applied to technology have been conceived by Andrew Rowell:

In Computational Software and in Cars.

It is amazing that some evolutionists continue being swallowed by such speculations!

16 years ago

I sometimes wonder if these people are actually aware of what they are doing.

Very well said and especially this statement. I’ve often wondered about the Darwinian’s credulity and blind allegiance to methodological naturalism. As fdocc has pointed out today, their arrogance prevents them from seeing beyond their own nose. According to Krauss the problem is that the majority of American are not educated in evolution. It has never occurred to him that maybe the evidence for a historic Christian belief is far more believable than spontaneous generation to sentient humanity. Thanks for posting.