Debunking IDiocy

The best news that I have recently heard about intelligent [sick] design came from an acquaintance who asked, "What's Intelligent Design?" It's nice to know that the IDiocy campaign to dupe everyone is faltering somewhat, though the aquaintance is not the best informed of individuals when it comes to controversy.

In case you have never heard the term, intelligent design creationism is a gussied up remake of an old apologetic argument from design, which began with an old platonic argument.

"For is there not a true beauty and a true good, which is always beautiful and always good?" ~ Plato, Dialogues.

Next, in 1802, the Reverend William Paley argued from design in Natural Theology that a watch must have arisen through the agency of a watchmaker. We'd probably accept this section of the analogy, but Paley fallaciously extrapolated the complexity of a mechanical device to the complexity of nature.

"Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; with the difference, on the side of nature, of being greater or more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation."
Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins responded to Paley's science-ignorant analogy, writing in The Blind Watchmaker (1986):

"Paley's argument is made with passionate sincerity and is informed by the best biological scholarship of the day, but it is wrong, gloriously and utterly wrong. The analogy between telescope and eye, between watch and living organism, is false. All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deployed in a special way. A true watchmaker has foresight: he designs his cogs and springs, and plans their interconnections, with a future porpose in his mind's eye. Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."
Prompted by lawyer, Phillip E. Johnson, the modern intelligent [sick] design proponents have dressed up the old apologetic analogy in fancy new clothes, but the emperor is still naked.

The tired old apologetic analogy now is disguised by pseudoscience and numbers games, but it remains no more valid than Plato's ancient appeal to truth, goodness, and beauty. Biological evolution is a fact, evolutionary theory seeks the best explanation for that fact.

There are two modes of attack possible for intelligent design creationism and creationism–scientific understanding and exposure of the fallacies of logic employed in apologetic arguments and arguments for creationism. I believe that both forms of attack must be used whenever and wherever ridiculous arguments for supernatural creators are trooped out.

å Anti-IDiocy resources
å Behe Retreats
å Complexity Reductio
å Dawkins refutes Behe
å Jones' Kitzmiller vs Dover decision
å Ken Miller on Collapse of Intelligent Design
å Panstupidity and Jumbo-Mumbo
å Reducible Illogic
å Tick Tock
å Un-designed Intelligences

Blogs Elsewhere : The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject (pointed humor) : Kenneth Miller on Intelligent Design :

William Paley, Natural Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Apperances of Nature, 1802

No comments: