Mum on the Designer?


The "know-nothing" stance of IDists toward their posited Designer is intellectually untenable.

Abstract:
The "know-nothing" stance of IDists toward their posited Designer is intellectually untenable.
Some quotes to ground the essay:
------------------
"The fact that ID does not identify the designer is only because of epistemological limitations of the scope of this scientific theory. This question is thus left as a religious or philosophical question outside the scope of intelligent design theory." (IDEA Center FAQ)

"ID leaves the identity of the designer open" -Michael Behe, from NPR interview on Feb. 13 2002

"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that." (Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01)

"You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering."--William A. Dembski Organisms using GAs vs. Organisms being built by GAs thread at ISCID 18. September 2002 (reference from June 2005 post on The Panda's Thumb)
--------------------
As we can see here, there are sophisticated (Dembski) and not-so-sophisticated (Behe) approaches to avoiding the question of the Intelligent Designer's identity. But the question is forced upon the IDists by their own rhetoric -- since they ask to be taken seriously, and couch their argument in scientific language, I think we anti-IDists do owe them that much.

IDists place their argument on a knife's edge between vacuity and falsehood, and our side is holding it up by not addressing it on its own terms. There has been much debate over the merits of even engaging with ID rhetoric in public, as to do so may be seen as legitimizing. No scientists testified for evolution at the recent hearings in Kansas. As a scientist myself, I wonder whether this is the correct tactical move. I think that the ID position is easy enough to deal with that a reasonably erudite treatment should suffice to put to rest its objections.

For the present discussion, then, I will address myself to the lack of precision that IDists have brought to the question of the Designer's identity. From the quotes above, we can readily see that the spokesmen of the ID movement have not fleshed out any description of the Designer upon whom their entire line of objection rests. They are content to leave unspecified any and all properties that the Designer has, save for the activity of designing. What I will argue is that this stance is completely untenable - the IDists' Designer necessarily has limitations that undermine the IDists' own position.

Posted: Sun - June 12, 2005 at 01:53 AM | | | |

©