Why I Oppose ID

. . . and how I oppose it.

There has been an interesting flap that started when MikeGene at Telic Thoughts proposed a typology of ID critics, and Ed Brayton responded, with further response again from MikeGene.

I think most of what needs to be said has already been said in those posts and the comments attached to them. I have to note that while I find Telic Thoughts a much more thoughtful and useful blog to read than Uncommon Descent (Translation: I now read the former, but not the latter!), my initial reaction to the typology was much less positive than Ed’s. There is, however, a point to the whole thing, which MikeGene makes. After quoting the following from Ed’s post:

There are several things that unite all these factions. Already mentioned is their inability to contemplate the issues related to ID without relying on the “ID=religion/God” stereotype. Furthermore, I would argue that all groups entail a very strong tendency toward closed-mindedness: Types B, C, D for metaphysical reasons and Type A for political reasons. Also, all groups are united in their strong tendency to label ID proponents as “Creationists” and “threats to Science.”

He then says:

Yet he then spends the rest of his blog demonstrating that my description was on track, as he tries to justify his broad brushed approach that includes stereotypes and labels. I have dealt with all his arguments before, and may rehash them again. But for now, I can simply point out that while I am willing to make a distinction between someone like Ed Brayton and Richard Dawkins, Ed apparently wants to lump me with Duane Gish and Philip Johnson, where, I suppose, the TT contributors are all nothing more than players in a “PR campaign to place a thin veneer of scientific-sounding terminology over good old-fashioned religious anti-evolutionism.”

Will the critics of ID ever break free of their stereotypes and realize that not all proponents of ID can be painted with the same broad brush?

There is a good point here, but it is one that is not carried through.

It is quite inappropriate to lump all of one’s opponents together when they are not united in all aspects of their views, in their reasons for opposition, in their strategies, or in some cases even in precisely what it is they are opposing. Yet the flavor of MikeGene’s original post makes negative suggestions about all ID opponents. Thus in a post about trying to separate the variety of opponents, he lumps them back together again.

There are several things that unite all these factions. Already mentioned is their inability to contemplate the issues related to ID without relying on the “ID=religion/God” stereotype. Furthermore, I would argue that all groups entail a very strong tendency toward closed-mindedness: Types B, C, D for metaphysical reasons and Type A for political reasons. Also, all groups are united in their strong tendency to label ID proponents as “Creationists” and “threats to Science.” [emphasis mine]

This is a fairly common tactic in any kind of movement, and I would note that my allies are no less subject to this type of claim. The idea is that you just know your own view is so correct, that the only possible reason to oppose it has to be some kind of closed mindedness, or villainy, or desire to deceive. One cannot possibly simply evaluate the same set of evidence and merely believe that you are wrong. MikeGene is convinced that the ID=religion connection is a stereotype, but that connection–or lack of one–should be a product of looking at the ideas and evaluating them. At the end, well-meaning, intelligent people can come to differing conclusions on such a matter. I do, in fact, believe that ID is essentially religious at the core. I’ve written about why I believe that before. There are some things–most particularly new fundamental research that uses ID as its framework–that would convince me otherwise. My point here is not that I’m right and MikeGene is wrong, but rather that we disagree, and there must be some way to state this without saying one or the other is deluded. Wouldn’t “wrong” be good enough. How about, “I believe MikeGene is wrong”?

Let me illustrate by an area in which I have a much larger disparity in beliefs–young earth creationism. I know more than one young earth creationist who are quite intelligent people, who carry on a sane conversation, yet they believe the earth is 6,000 years old. I think the evidence is somewhere beyond overwhelming that their view of the earth’s age is simply wrong. It’s not possible. I can see no justification for it. Yet I’ve invited such people to speak at events for which I’m sponsor, and I’ve shared the platform with them. I neither want them silenced, nor do I encourage people not to listen to them.

In responding to Ed’s comments about those who oppose ID simply because it is wrong, MikeGene says:

In other word’s ID proponents are deluded; this is just an expression of the “stupid, dishonest, or deluded” stereotype. As for centering on religious motives, that is exactly what Ed’s blog does. I am more than willing to discuss ID without discussion of religion and religious motives. But as one who has argued with 100s of critics, they commonly inject this dimension into the discussion. Thus, we need to factor the manner in which they hear