History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Design arguments vs Darwin critiques

September 15th, 2011 · No Comments

One of the strange things about the ID group is the way they think they represent design arguments. If anything, the ancient design argument, visible in Socrates, has been spoiled by these people. I am baffled that a group would try to enforce an orthodoxy of rightwing politics among Darwin critics. Laughable. But that is what they have wrought, and the result is strangely an ace in the hole for the Darwin paradigm. All they have to do is to point to the rightwing kooks who propose design arguments. I know from experience here that as a result even mentioning the design argument can provoke insane wrath from mainstream Darwinists..
Since I don’t really believe in the ‘design’ argument, there isn’t a problem therefore. But the fact is that ‘design’ arguments won’t go away, however much the Bible Belt might discredit them. More on that later, but I think that the turning point came with Philip Johnson, and then Behe. Michael Denton in his book on Darwinism never allowed the design argument to enter the critique. His later book on ‘fine-tuning’ was reasonable enough, and a disciplined version of that argument. A far cry from the garbled design mania that came into existence after Philip Johnson (who also disciplined his first book to not peddle design).

I think that a new and different type of design argument can be explored, but that is no longer an option given the chaos created by the Discovery gang, and the Bible Belt.

Let me say it clearly: the Old Testament is NOT evidence of theistic design in history. Until that is clear, the real design argument will be constantly muddled by Christians and Jews.

Tags: Evolution · Science & Religion

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment