Some cartoon ID rhetoric sets up another cartoon
Right there in the middle of William Dembski's concerted efforts to restore some semblance of order and respectability to his wayward blog (Uncommon Descent), DaveScot pops up with another of his silly vengence-motivated spleen exudations. Normally he and the other sycophants over there aren't worth the ATP expenditure in typing, but I did notice a couple of his points which represent the more daft wing of ID argumentation and thought it might be fun to poke them with a stick.
In response to someone who asks what Michael Behe and Guillermo Gonzalez have been up to, he says,
"No, I haven’t really heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately but maybe I missed Behe and Gonzalez because I was preoccupied in hearing ID recently supported by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Florida as well as some U.S. Senators and other state governors."How's that for a goofy bit of argument from really-really-really inappropriate and unqualified authority?
He goes on,
"What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over. ID may or may not be mathematically provable but it is intuitively obvious to any objective student of intracellular molecular machinery. Furthermore, to the same objective student, the initial assembly of said molecular machinery being assigned to random interaction of primitive chemical precursors doesn’t even pass the giggle test. "Ah, yes, the incisive and thoughtful "...it is intuitively obvious..." argument. Coupled with the previous assertion, DS has summarized the two strongest arrows in the ID quiver - "We know it when we see it, and lots of big shots see it, so pbthththththt!"
He finishes the above paragraph with this,
"ID is a given to anyone without a subjective commitment to a ludicrous contrary narrative."Of course the "ludicrous contrary narrative" he's talking about here is the product of a couple hundred years and thousands of man-hours of research and documentation which establish the empirical reality of evolutionary biology. Call me crazy but I think that can withstand the intellectual challenge of two Bushes and a Perry.
More importantly, this "ludicrous contrary narrative" is the result of a sea change in how science and religion were viewed. It's the result of a cultural imperative to take convenient but errant "intuition" out of the mix when investigating empirical reality. It's the upshot of centuries spent trying to leave the shackles of superstition behind.
But back to the good-old-days of supernatural explanations is just where most of the ID crowd would like to take us ("Hey, it's okay to let superstition back into science, but just in this one area."). And this regressive mindset dovetails nicely with another I(neptly) D(rawn) cartoon I've just finished.
ID 'Toons #4 - D.I. Time Machine