Over at William Dembski’s blog, GilDodgen asks the following:
Even the most vociferous and vehement ID opponents (e.g., Richard Dawkins) admit that design in nature appears to be self-evident. Why then, the heroic efforts to explain design away, with such silliness as random variation and natural selection providing the engine that produced highly sophisticated biological software and information-processing systems?
I remain completely bewildered by the fact that intelligent, educated people cannot recognize this obvious act of denial and desperation. On the other hand, perhaps they don’t want to recognize it, because evidence and logic might conflict with what they want to believe — that there is no design or ultimate purpose to anything.
An obvious question remains: What might motivate this denial of the obvious? I believe that the answer is obvious, and it has to do with accountability.
Apparently on Planet GilDodgen dogmatically asserting that design in nature is obvious means making an argument based on evidence and logic. But when you claim instead that the accumulated findings from paleontology, genetics, anatomy, molecular biology, zoology, ethology, biogeography, population genetics and every other branch of science with something relevant to say points to the conclusion that modern species are related by common descent and that natural selection is a very important mechanism guiding that descent, then you are desperately denying the obvious and probably acting from impure motives.
In lamenting the unwillingness of scientists simply to accept the obivous answer and go home, GilDodgen has given us an admirably clear statement of what modern ID is really all about. If you think too much you just get confused. There’s really nothing more to it than that.