The ID group complains of censorship. But they are hoist on their own petard. After twenty years they still haven’t discussed the issue of design in history: the eonic effect and its interpretation.
The ID gambit is a sneak attack on god thinking but it can’t work because it can’t mix two modes: demonstration as science and faith as religion. You can’t produce much of an ID argument is you are also committed to taking ‘god’ as ‘faith’.
We have discussed Barzun here many times, but here we see the discotuters are trying to absorb him into their propaganda, as they did with Wallace.
Barzun is one of the best critics of Darwin, in an unexpected time and place. Barzun has no connection to Meyer with his current ‘god’ campaign.
The ID critics have produced a lot of useful work exposing Darwinism but then the ID angle confuses the issue with an uncritical equation with theology.
Let’s be clear: you cannot use the ID argument if you combine evolution reasoning with Biblical history. The Old Testament seems a prime example of
intelligent design, the problem is that it is not history but myth.
The issue of ‘intelligent’ design is hopelessly confused. So what if evolutionary design seems intelligent? We cannot conclude anything because we have no knowledge of anything with that supposed property.
The ID people have played with fire and will end up confounded: the best approach to design, perhaps even ‘intelligent’ design, is atheism. Once the archaic god idea is flushed out the discussion poses its real mystery.
We cannot determine whether phenomena in nature that look ‘intelligent’ have any ‘personal’ aspects in any category of thought.
We have put ‘atheist’ in quotation marks because atheists are almost as confused as religious believers, but they can at least evade simplistic confusions over ‘god’ created by the deceptive ‘intelligent’ adjective designed with guile to bridge pseudo-science with biblical faith.
The discussion of ‘design’ in history is brought to a new coherence by the study of the ‘eonic effect’ and our model of history. Then we do indeed see ‘design’ in nature and yet we are not sure exactly what it points to .