ID is not theistic evolution, which I really have no problem with anyone holding. Rather it is an attempt to say that science can in fact show that certain things could not in fact evolve. Unfortunately they have not provided any useful means, other than hand waving, for how science could do such a thing. The argument always comes down to this: We can't currently explain X to a sufficiently satisfactory level, therefore ID explains it better than evolution. A classic argument from ignorance. Whats worse is that it encourages ignorance, since once you know that it was "just designed" that way, why spend time trying to understand how it is tied in with the rest of the natural world?
Science on the other hand keeps minting new PhDs who expand our knowledge off all those Xs out there, which is a useful thing, particularly when all the baby boomers start sucking more medicare resources, and we could really use the sort of progress that evolutionary insight in medicine and biology provides.
The real problem is that ID wants to make non natural explanations become accepted in the sphere of science, which is precisely what science is not about. If ID is OK, so is astrology, or Crystals, or any other wacky concept. |
