Trading Blows

A very good critique of "Darwinian Fundamentalism" at the blog of the same name.

A very good critique of the critique at Gideon's Blog:

What do I think of intelligent design? I think it's fundamentally dishonest in that it poses as a scientific theory whereas at best it is a critique of a scientific theory.

(H/T The Glittering Eye.)

At first blush that sounds like a justified criticism. But read this by William Dembski -- including the Comments -- and you may not be so sure. When evolution's defenders caricature, lump together, distort and dismiss ID theorists instead of engaging them (note that Noah Millman at Gideon's Blog is NOT guilty of this), it begins to look as if more actual thinking is going on on the ID side. As Dembski writes, in critiques of ID "the designer of ID is claimed to be 'supernatural,' when in fact the nature of nature is precisely what’s at issue, and the designer could be perfectly natural provided that nature is understood aright." [Emphasis added.]

Comments

[karen]

MoltenThought has a post on ID.