EvoWiki is now a project of the RationalMedia Foundation.
We are moving all content to RationalWiki.
See the EvoWiki project page for details!

IDist self-contradictions

From EvoWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This is a page for listing your favorite IDist self-contradictions.

For example:

1. In Darwin's Proof: The Triumph of Religion over Science, Cornelius G. Hunter criticizes evolutionists for attacking the wrong position -- basically, for relying on a strawman of the design argument, and then arguing that the evidence either contradicts or is inexplicable on the design argument. Hunter criticizes Darwin for writing,

"On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; -- that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan. But this is not a scientific explanation." (from Hunter, p. 104; originally Origin of Species p. 435)
But on pages 99-100, Hunter himself wrote,
"For four chapters [of the Book of Job] God makes it clear that he is sovereign and creates according to his good pleasure. [...] There is a natural temptation to rationalize the world -- to make our own sense of God's creation. But Scripture describes God as sovereign. He does not create according to some optimization formula that we can derive. Yes, God created the species perfectly, but he did so according to his own good pleasure. Scripture teaches that God created all things by his will."
Sounds to me like Darwin had Hunter's type pegged 100+ years ago.

2. In his 1996 book, Darwin's Black Box, Dr. Michael Behe claimed that the existence of irreducibly complex (IC) systems in biological organisms is evidence for their intelligent design (ID). Dr. Behe attempted to demonstrate that the IC systems could not have arisen through "Darwinian" evolution, and therefore must have originated through the intervention of an intelligent designer. However, as has been pointed out to him repeatedly, this IC to ID inference is a form of negative argumentation, which reaches its conclusion of design based on the lack of knowledge of how IC systems could have evolved. It is especially ironic then, that Dr. Behe would write in a letter to Nature (which was rejected by the journal):

"The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results." [1]

In writing this, Dr. Behe tacitly admits the weakness of all existing methods used by intelligent designists to infer design, including irreducible complexity, and complex specified information (CSI).

3. In his critique of a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum, one of William Dembski's primary arguments was that the author was an amateur when it comes to evolutionary biology. That such a criticism applies to Dembski in spades apparently did not occur to him. Either way, it is an ad hominem attack.

External Links

Personal tools