Another in a series by Dembski as Evo-News. As noted many times here, the left has gotten stuck in Darwinism and is unable to get unstuck. But the critique of Darwinism at such sites as EvoNews has crept on the Darwin fanatics. These sites are bastions of the conservative right but with ID they have moderated their religious/conservative take to the point that one can profitably consider their frequent contributions to discussions of evolution.
Marxists need to move on from Marx’s plug for Darwin and should consider that the debriefing of Darwinism should have been a task for the left. Failure to do so has left them ‘left behind’ when they could have better debriefed the issue as in part ideology.
I do not share the hysteria of the mainstream secularists over design, or ‘Intelligent’ Design. The quotes are there because the issue of specification in the Dembski (assuming I understand what he means by the term) won’t work for theological implications. If not, I can state my point without that term: evidence for design cannot use the term ‘intelligent’ safely if they can’t specify constructively the ‘designer’. The comparison of Mt. Rainer and Mt. Rushmore is apt, but in theology we only have a mountain Rainer: there is nothing comparable to Mt. Rushmore’s specification of the faces of presidents. The term ‘god’ is available to the discussion because it is part of what we are trying (and failing) to specify.
As a secularist who studies history I find world history to be designed to a degree that is remarkable. But ironically the ‘design’ behind, say, the early history of Israel compounds the issue. We cannot ascribe the design here to a divinity.
We addressed this question here already: cf. the essays in the recurring ‘Some essay posts’.
It is sad to watch the world of science so fatally addicted to Darwinism. The credibility of science is at stake and biologists seem oblivious.