10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design

Joe over at EO has a really nice three part series entitled 10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design.  I've listed his main points below, but you'll have to read the series to get the whole picture.  My favorite part?  In the comments...

There is something that does puzzle me though...while it is a fact that the overwhelming majority of IDists are evengelical christians and counts among them not one single athiest as far as anyone knows,

First, let's consider that only about 5% of the population is atheist. So that narrows it down somewhat. Second, there are atheists who accept ID. Anthony Flew is probably the most notable one. Todd Moody and David Berlinski are agnostics. And David Stove, rejected neo-Darwinism and he was an atheist.

Also, what about Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle. Neither of them were "evangelical Christians" and they both posited a form of "intelligent design" argument for the seeding of life on earth.

EO's Ten Eleven Ways Darwinists Help ID

1. By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory
2. By claiming that ID is stealth creationism
3. By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments
4. By claiming that ID isn’t science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals
5. By making claims that natural selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features
6. By invoking design in non-design explanations
7. By claiming that the criticism of ID has nothing to do with a prejudice against theism – and then having the most vocal critics of ID be anti-religious atheists
8. By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations
9. By resorting to ad hominems instead of arguments (e.g., claiming that advocates of ID are “ignorant”)
10. By not being able to believe their own theory
11. By accusing ID advocates of dishonesty

And I've got two of my own to add:

1. By failing to separate evolutionary assumptions from evolutionary empirical science

One of my biggest peeves in arguing with evolutionists is that they love to make this big jump from observable phenomenon (natural selection, speciation, genetic mutations) to macro evolution, assuming that if you've seen the former, you've seen the latter.  Not only is this intellectually dishonest and lazy, it is poor science.  While they may be correct, they certainly have not proved their case, and there is certainly data to contradict such a leap, such as the pattern we see most often with respect to genetic mutation, regression to the mean (although, this is argued).

This lack of ability or desire to separate assumptions from science also works for evolutionists when critiquing Creation Science - for them, if you have deistic assumptions, you are not doing real science.  However, not only would this exclude most of our greatest historical scientists like Bacon, Newton, Keppler, and Pascal, it also fails to acknowledge that you can do real empirical science to prove and disprove any scientific claims you make based on your assumptions. 

2. By failing to answer objections to evolution, and by being cock-sure of being right, to the point of hubris

Pride is ugly.  And as the bible says, it often leads to a fall.  Not only is the patronizing and over-confident attitude of evolutionary supporters unflattering to them, it makes us all feel like they are blind to the weaknesses, real or perceived, in their worldview.  In fact, they act like fanatics, by whom only the most superficial objections are fielded, while real objections are poo-pooed because they can't bear to ask the hard questions without threatening their orthodoxy.  No one really believes a fanatic, except other fanatics.  And evolutionists, in acting like narrow, bigoted, self-righteous fanatics, embolden their critics because, in addition to the criticisms of their theory, more doubt it poured on the theory by such obviously faith-driven behaviors.

Comments

[Cineaste]

Seeker, why did the designer design birds with wings that don't fly, like ostriches?

[seeker]

From Common arguments for evolution that have been rejected:

Wings on birds that do not fly?

There are at least two possibilities as to why flightless birds such as ostriches and emus have wings:

1. The wings are indeed ‘useless’ and derived from birds that once could fly. This is possible in the creationist model. Loss of features is relatively easy by natural processes, whereas acquisition of new characters, requiring specific new DNA information, is impossible. Loss of wings most probably occurred in a beetle species that colonized a windy island. Again, this is loss of genetic information, so it is not evidence for microbe-to-man evolution, which requires masses of new genetic information.

2.The wings have a function. Some possible functions, depending on the species of flightless bird, are: balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators (emus will run at perceived enemies of their chicks, mouth open and wings flapping), sheltering of chicks, etc. If the wings are useless, why are the muscles functional, allowing these birds to move their wings?

[Cineaste]

So,

A. "The wings are indeed ‘useless’ and derived from birds that once could fly." Glad to see you've become an an evolutionist.

Or,

B. Ostriches were designed with tiny wings for balance not flight ...uh huh.

[Aaron]

Cineaste, your response to seeker's A option is precisely the point of his post. You stick to a stereotype of creationists or ID'ers that is not based in fact and you do damage to your viewpoint by not admitting such.

Creationist and ID'ers do not doubt that some types of evolution happened. For ID it is entirely possible for an ID'er to believe all of evolution, but not accept that it was an unguided process.

Even for a young earth creationist, they accept that microevolution happened and happens. Seeker and I have constantly pointed this out, but you continue to think it is a huge deal if we claim an ostrich decended from another bird. Creationist draw the line at the bird becoming a lizard or other types of changes to the kind of animal.

It is not against creationism or ID to say that all birds decended or "evolved" from one type of bird. All dogs from one dog, etc.

[Ed Darrell]

By accusing ID advocates of dishonesty

You mean, we shouldn't point out that neither Watson nor Crick suggested ID, and that the claim made earlier is exactly wrong?

What is it, then, if not dishonesty? Surely some supporter of ID at some time bothered to read Watson AND Crick, and noted that they did NOT pose any form of ID, anywhere. And surely that information got back to ID Central for analysis . . .

[Ed Darrell]

Doesn't matter how ugly it is, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."

Like the haughty list you posted up there.

[seeker]

Come on ed, how is the list haughty? It is telling evolutionists what they are doing wrong in their fight against ID. You'd think they would take notice rather than resorting to the same tactics they are being criticized for. And I think my two additions to the original list were meaningful.

[Ed Darrell]

Any list that is packed with misinformation -- spin, that is -- solely to mislead the faithful, is "haughty" in my book.

The list Joe draws up is interesting, but his explanations fall short of Christian seeking. His list demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the deeper messages of scripture, and a complete misunderstanding of science, probably a willing and cunning misunderstanding (how could he not know that he's misleading people about Crick's views?)

Or, like your mis-citing of the Bible. To claim others are in error, when your own errors are manifest, is rather haughty.

Here, go take a detailed look at problems with the list: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2006/08/11/twisting-recent-history-creationism-2/
and http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2006/08/11/twisting-recent-history-creationism-1/