Demagogue

Normally, I don't pay too much attention to creationism and/or Intelligent Design because, frankly, I think that they "theories" are idiotic and pointless. But Kevin Drum linked to an article in the New York Times yesterday that, like every other piece on the subject I have ever perused, fails to address the basic question of who designed the designer?

But first, let's address this

Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. The 18th-century clergyman William Paley likened living things to a watch, arguing that the workings of both point to intelligent design. Modern Darwinists disagree with Paley that the perceived design is real, but they do agree that life overwhelms us with the appearance of design.

To me this seems a mere tautology. If the universe evolved in such a manner as to give rise to intelligent life forms, it only seems logical that, in analyzing that system, such forms would see the appearance of design. Since the existence of intelligent beings is necessarily dependent on whatever "design" gave rise to them, any analysis of the system of going to give the appearance of design. But just because such beings exist does not mean that their existence was a necessary result of the design - only that the "design" was necessary of their existence.

If there are intelligent beings on some far-flung planet in some dark corner of the universe, I am sure that they are all marveling on how amazing it is that their atmosphere contains just the perfect amount of cyanide necesary to ensure that their gills function properly.

Anyway, on to this

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

The "absence of any convincing non-design explanation" is due mostly to people's refusal to accept any non-design explanation. People don't like to think that they exist only because of a series of random chances (from the evolution of the universe to their parent's choice of mate) so they don't.

But even if we grant that the universe has the appearance of design and that that design comes from an Intelligent Designer, the theory never answers the basic question of, if the universe is dependent on such a Designer, where did the Designer itself come from? Did it simply design itself into its design of the universe? That is not even logically possible. The only alternative I can think of is that the Designer simply exists - but if it is absurd to think that the universe simply exists, why is it not equally absurd to think that a Designer simply exists?

Until ID proponents can come up with some answer to this basic paradox, they are really in no position to be complaining about the shortcomings and flaws of Darwinian evolution.