You are here

More Thoughts on Intelligent Intentions

With continuing clarification from intelligent design proponents like Michael J. Behe that:

Intelligent design proponents do question whether random mutation and natural selection completely explain the deep structure of life. But they do not doubt that evolution occurred. And intelligent design itself says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.

... can ID ever be considered independently without creationist hijackers muddying the waters? Is it feasible for most people (and not just religious believers) to consider notions of intelligence and intention without preconceptions of a dogmatized deity or assumptions that creation has something to do with â??goodnessâ??

ID proponents see a place for investigating both evolution and design as a logical approach. Is this reasonable?


Well, Behe is being magnificently disingenuous, in that he knows damn well that ID as a movement was absolutely created to justify the pan-Semitic "creator god" concept. And he knows damn well that the bulk of ID proponents do absolutely "doubt that evolution occurred".

That doesn't surprise me. It's a tradition of logicalism to assume the purest interpretation of your position and ignore the unwashed and ignorant who flock to your flag. Behe and his purist ID-ers would claim no responsibility for the fact that their clean, intellectualist Doubter's Club is being used as a beard for the meanest and most brutal kind of anti-intellectualism.

William A. Dembski had this to say:

The Intelligent Design movement begins with the work of Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Michael Denton, Dean Kenyon, and Phillip Johnson. Without employing the Bible as a scientific text, these scholars critiqued Darwinism on scientific and philosophical grounds. On scientific grounds they found Darwinism an inadequate framework for biology. On philosophical grounds they found Darwinism hopelessly entangled with naturalism, the view that nature is self-sufficient and thus without need of God or any guiding intelligence. More recently, scholars like Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Jonathan Wells, and myself have taken the next step, proposing a positive research program wherein intelligent causes become the key for understanding the diversity and complexity of life.

There is a saying that if a pearl is cast into the mud, it will not be less valuable. Likewise, it will not become more valuable if anointed with balsam.

Life is, well,... life. And, biology is science capable of being at risk of sliding down a slippery slope into balsam or mud, depending on oneâ??s worldview.

If Intelligent Design proponents believe in intelligent causes, then the Bible thumpers undoubtedly will use that to their own ends, spreading irrational misinformation and perpetuating an anti-intellectual environment.

If evolution theory proponents have a naturalistic framework, then people like Richard Dawkins undoubtedly will use this platform to spread vitriolic distaste for religion, perpetuating an irrational, hard atheistic agenda of arrogant exclusivity.

All the while, life continues with or without our worldviews, mocking our polarizing self-importance.

Can one realistically keep philosophy out of biology? If not, whatâ??s wrong with investigating different paths and working cooperatively and vigilantly to keep washing all those pesky oils and mud off the pearl? Donâ??t ignore the â??unwashed and ignorant.â? Be sure to critically and collectively identify exactly what they are and what they are not for fear of their insidious way of contaminating the lenses.

I know. Iâ??m asking too much. It would take more than a jackhammer to get through some of the calcified cataracts.

Add new comment