Cognitive Dissonance

Darwinists go to great lengths to try and argue that ID is nothing more than creationism.  Sometimes they’ll even go so far as to make arguments that counter their view, then simply disregard those arguments as if they never made them.  Take this opinion for instance.

Proponents of intelligent design aggressively market their viewpoint as real science, insisting it is not religion-based. One leading advocate, Michael Behe, writes, “The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself, not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs.”

Their viewpoint is not religiously based, they insist, because it does not require that the intelligent designer is God. Design, writes leading proponent William Dembski, “requires neither magic nor miracles nor a creator.”

Indeed, design apparently requires surprisingly little of the designer’s identity. “Inferences to design,” contends Behe, “do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer.” Some have even seriously nominated advanced space aliens for the role.

The author point blank gives arguments as to why ID is not necessarily religiously based.  You’d think that that would end the argument, but not so fast!

Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an intelligent designer?

It could not. Such a being would not account for the complexity that design proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of designing the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own designer. If design can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported martian designer would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another designer.

It gets worse from there, so I’ll spare you the details.  Suffice it to say that the author is wrong in his conclusions, but what’s worse is that he rightly points out that ID need not be religious, then ignores his own words to simply assert that ID is religious.  Why?  Because it simply must be according to his worldview.  How sad.


One response to “Cognitive Dissonance

  1. Pingback: More Cognitive Dissonance « Professor Smith’s Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s