The Flowchart of Objections to Intelligent Design

by Max Andrews


13 Responses to “The Flowchart of Objections to Intelligent Design”

  1. You’d think somebody might have read the ID literature, somewhere, sometime.

  2. What is meant by “facepalm” and “double facepalm”?

  3. Pro-ID Arguments:

    Argument from Ignorance? Yes! (Behe’s Black Box)

    False dichotomies Yes! (Pretty much *every* ID argument)

    Informal-and-ever-moving-definitions? Yes! (Irreducible Complexity and Complex Specified Complexity)

    Argumentum ad consequentiam? Yes! (‘From Darwin to Hitler’, as well as a hundred and one other social ills fallaciously ascribed to evolution)

    Inflation of credentials? Yes! (Most commonly the long line of philosophers, lawyers, etc paraded as ‘scientists’)

    Inflated claims of peer review? Yes! (Most amusingly, the ‘Black Box’ ‘reviewer’ who never actually read the book — just discussed the *idea* of it with Behe’s publisher)

    Faux-martyrdoms? Yes, dozens! (Most notably Sternberg)

    Etc.

    Etc.

    Etc.

    • Pro-Evolution Arguments:

      Argument from Ignorance? Yes! (We know evolution is a fact, now we just need to find some evidence. In our more honest moments, we are finding the evidence is swinging against us though.)

      False dichotomies Yes! (It is either evolution, or evolution. Our a priori “facts” cannot allow us to reach any other conclusion, thus it must be evolution.)

      Informal-and-ever-moving-definitions? Yes! (Just try defining evolution. Micro? Macro? Change over time? Nah, just use them interchangeably to create a smoke screen. Damn those Intelligent Design guys for seeing right thru our little game.)

      Argumentum ad consequentiam? Yes! (‘From Darwin to Hitler’ — indeed atheism provides a nice ontological foundation for killing Jews while singing “nothing else matters”. But of course we would never do that.)

      Inflation of credentials? Yes! (Yes, we atheist materialists have such poor arguments against Intelligent Design that we like to inflate our credentials and make us all secular priests, and then scoff at any other academic, however good they are, for dissenting.)

      Inflated claims of peer review? Yes! (Nah, we let papers thru peer review then pull them from the journals at the last moment — e.g. Granville Sowell’s recent paper — and we only had to pay out $10k compensation to him for our little jaunt.)

      Faux-martyrdoms? Yes, dozens! (Nah, we have blowhard cowards like Richard Dawkins who write books about topics we knows little about. Then we refuse to debate the content of the book with a Christian philosopher like William Lane Craig.)

      Etc.

      Etc.

      Etc.

  4. Let’s see, where does Hafrn fit into this chart?

  5. Of course ID advocates are idiots, as is anyone who questions the status quo. They lack the keen and insightful logic of true academia:

    “The Big Bang could’ve occurred as a result of just the laws of physics being there,” said astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley. “With the laws of physics, you can get universes.”
    “If you would just, in this room, just twist time and space the right way, you might create an entirely new universe. It’s not clear you could get into that universe, but you would create it.”

    “So it could be that this universe is merely the science fair project of a kid in another universe,” Shostak added. “I don’t know how that affects your theological leanings, but it is something to consider.”

    Need something (aka everything) from nothing? Simply a) find kid in science fair in another universe to create our universe (please don’t ask where he came from or which school district he is from) and b) hire space aliens from another universe to seed ours with life.
    oh yeah and c) Heil Darwin or die!

    As always ‘could’ve’ means ‘with certainty’ in Darwinian/Evolutionary vernacular. Or at least ‘your objections must fall within the guidelines previously established by God. Err, Darwin’.

  6. You’ve put together an excellent piece there, and it looks like I might become a regular reader here even if I might have some disagreements beyond ID itself.

    I think I’ll start recommending this site to others.

  7. Trackbacks

Leave a Reply