These ID websites often have better information than the stale and reductionist Darwin camp, but the ID perspective can’t make up its mind between a veiled creationist and a well-informed critique of Darwinism.
Here we see the obvious attempt to pit ID directly against ‘evolution’, a tactic often kept in check at these sites.
They know better but somehow the religious faction in the background seems to come to the fore.
In any case as noted over and over again here the dilemma of ‘design’ and ‘evolution’ is false and the source of as much confusion as the Darwinian.
Design in natue is real and ‘seems’ indeed to be ‘intelligent’, but the problem is we can’t specify to what the term ‘intelligent’ is to refer. The sleight of hand by the ID crowd is to pass at once from ‘intelligent’ to some agency that is intelligent and then to claim that this is related to the ‘intelligent designer’ imagined in the Bible. It doesn’t follow: we no way to specify the nature of the apparent designer. It is something Kant rightly exposed as a false inference about a proof for the existence of god.
Another irony is that intelligence in nature makes better sense than to project a theistic entity outside of of nature that intervenes in nature.
In the end we are simply confronted with the mystery of evolution in nature, and to make progress with something that current science can’t resolve we must discipline ourselves to bypass the false inferences of ‘intelligent’ design. In the age of AI see very clearly that a mechanical process can seem intelligent, and yet remain purely mechanical.
Darwinism remains a failure of science and the longer it goes on the more damage it will cause to our trust in science captured by ideology.
Here the left should have been some help but in fact the left has been completely confused or else intentionally deceptive on an issue that should have been set right in the nineteenth century but which Darwin has fixated on social Darwinist, genocidal, and imperialist thinking.
A social tragedy at the limits of science.
Source: Evolution or Intelligent design: On which side is the evidence? – Uncommon Descent