Arnhart on ID

I have a student currently working on conservative reactions to the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling. As part of the preparations, I'm having him read Larry Arnhart's Darwinian Conservatism [amaz] and John West's response, Darwin's Conservatives [amaz]. Over at his blog, Arnhart has made the following trenchant observation that I felt was worth sharing:

I claim that intelligent design is mostly a negative argument from ignorance with little positive content. That is to say, the proponents of ID attack Darwinian science for not satisying the highest standards of proof, and then they conclude that if the Darwinian arguments fall short of absolute proof, then ID wins by default. The sophistry here is that the proponents of ID set up standards of proof for Darwinian science that they themselves could never satisfy if they had to make a positive case for ID.


I say that for ID to have some positive content, its proponents would have to explain exactly where, when, and how a disembodied intelligence designed "irreducibly complex" structures like the bacterial flagellum. West responds by saying that the proponents of ID don't have to do this. They can infer that there is an intelligent designer without explaining exactly where, when, or how the designer works. But that confirms my point! The proponents of ID cannot do what they demand that the Darwinists must do--provide detailed, step-by-step explanations of exactly how these "irreducibly complex" mechanisms are constructed.

Be sure and browse through Arnhart''s blog - he has had some interesting exchanges with Discovery Institute Fellows such as West, Francis Beckwith, and Richard Weikart.

Update: In an earlier version of this post, I referred to Francis Beckwith as an "ID supporter". Dr Beckwith informs me that he "has never been much of fan [of] design arguments, ever.  [His] interest in the debate focuses on the jurisprudential questions involving the First Amendment and what could be permissibly taught in public schools under that amendment." I apologize for any confusion caused.

More like this

Jason’s recent encounter with ID-apologist Tom Woodward spurred me to revisit his book Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design (2006) which I had tossed aside months back due to its breathless, inane cheerleading for ID. Not surprisingly, the talk Jason witnessed follows…
An international team of researchers, including Monash University biochemists, has discovered evidence at the molecular level in support of one of the key tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution. ... that it happened ... Trevor Lithgow said the breakthrough, funded by the Australian Research…
What if they had a debate about evolution, and didn't bother to invite any scientists? It would be unhinged and divorced from reality, and all the wheels would be spinning wildly, and they could come up with any ol' crazy crap they wanted. This must be why the American Enterprise Institute…
I mentioned before that there has been a peculiar silence on the ID blogs about Michael Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution. Behe was the one marginally credible biologist on the Discovery Institute team, the guy who got everything rolling with Darwin's Black Box and their old magic mantra of "…

"I claim that intelligent design is mostly a negative argument from ignorance with little positive content."

Have they ever produced any positive content?

Off the top of my head, there's the banana-fitting-hand argument.

Wait, why are you laughing! This is GOOD SCIENCINESS!

Hi John, Did you link to Arnhart's blog? Chris

Heh, it was there yesterday! I swear.

Fixed.

By John Lynch (not verified) on 18 Dec 2006 #permalink