Dembski and Wells make several clear and compelling points in this post!
In a sense, what ID theorists like Dembski have done for the field of evolutionary biology (among others) is to bring systemic mathematical rigor to it. One would think that would be a most welcome effort.
However, evolutionists don't really like it because the systemic mathematical rigor exposes numerous significant holes in modern evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism). They prefer their theory to the facts.
At the same time, Dembski proposes ID theory, which is even more anathema to secular evolutionists. That's because secular evolutionists illogically conflate evolution with atheism (e.g. the widespread appeal of Dawkins' "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"). Or at least functional atheism or agnosticism.
Dembski and Wells make several clear and compelling points in this post!
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, what ID theorists like Dembski have done for the field of evolutionary biology (among others) is to bring systemic mathematical rigor to it. One would think that would be a most welcome effort.
However, evolutionists don't really like it because the systemic mathematical rigor exposes numerous significant holes in modern evolutionary theory (neo-Darwinism). They prefer their theory to the facts.
At the same time, Dembski proposes ID theory, which is even more anathema to secular evolutionists. That's because secular evolutionists illogically conflate evolution with atheism (e.g. the widespread appeal of Dawkins' "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"). Or at least functional atheism or agnosticism.