Helpful Mutations in the Arguments of Darwinists
...Helpful for IDers, that is.
Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost posted an insightful article titled, "10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design" (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Naturally, the Darwinists commenting on the articles worked diligently to demonstrate his point. Here are the 10 ways he lists:
Read the article; Joe clarifies these points there.
I always learned that the strongest arguments are made when the one making it can make the argument for the other side better than his opponent. What really propels intellectual endeavors to excellence is when the debate is approached with such rigor as to benefit the growth of both sides toward an ever deeper understanding of the truth. It's frustrating to one side who has this goal when the other side isn't interested more in obfuscation for the sake of winning the argument rather than discovering the truth. So, while the poor arguments of Darwinists help the IDers in the public arena, the debate culminates at perhaps a lower level than it would and knowledge of the truth yet suffers.
Joe Carter at the Evangelical Outpost posted an insightful article titled, "10 Ways Darwinists Help Intelligent Design" (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Naturally, the Darwinists commenting on the articles worked diligently to demonstrate his point. Here are the 10 ways he lists:
- By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory.
- By claiming that ID is stealth creationism.
- By resorting to "science of the gaps" arguments.
- By claiming that ID isn't science since it's not published peer-reviewed literature...and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals.
- By making claims that natural selection/sexual selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features.
- By invoking design in non-design explanations.
- By claiming that the criticism of ID has nothing to do with a prejudice against theism -- and then having the most vocal critics of ID be anti-religious atheists.
- By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations.
- By resorting to ad hominems instead of arguments (e.g., claiming that advocates of ID are ignorant, liars, creationists, etc.).
- By not being able to believe their own theory.
Read the article; Joe clarifies these points there.
I always learned that the strongest arguments are made when the one making it can make the argument for the other side better than his opponent. What really propels intellectual endeavors to excellence is when the debate is approached with such rigor as to benefit the growth of both sides toward an ever deeper understanding of the truth. It's frustrating to one side who has this goal when the other side isn't interested more in obfuscation for the sake of winning the argument rather than discovering the truth. So, while the poor arguments of Darwinists help the IDers in the public arena, the debate culminates at perhaps a lower level than it would and knowledge of the truth yet suffers.
Labels: Creationism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, the origins debate
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home