Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Jerry Coyne has an amusing post at his notblog.
First of all, Jerry reports on Darwin's Doubt, the latest "Game-Changing New Book" on Intelligent Design Creationism by Stephen C. Meyer, that will be "a paradigm shift" in the evolution "debate."
Jerry notes that it is being published by HarperOne, which describes itself as publishing "[t]he most important books across the full spectrum of religion, spirituality, and personal growth."
Wait a minute! Doesn't the Discoveryless Institute keep telling us that ID has nothing to do with religion?
But that's not all!
Jerry goes on to say:
If Meyer can't adduce positive evidence that a designer created the Cambrian explosion—and I can't imagine how he could possibly do this—his argument would rest only on our current ignorance of why it happened (Emphasis added).You know, I've mentioned once or twice, that Jerry may just not understand the concept of Methodological Naturalism.
But maybe he is getting a glimmer. After all, if he cannot "imagine" how science could confirm the action of a "designer," how could science discomfirm the action of a "designer"?
However, I suspect his own words will fail to sink in.
In that sense, "specified complexity" is not a silly bug, it is a feature of the ID program.
I doubt it. It's more a recognition that, as far as life's history goes, the Cambrian is among the least known eras and, therefore, provides one of the biggest gaps into which to stuff their god. They'll go on disputing common descent (as Casey Lumpkin often does), especially when it comes to humans.
But if the best that they can do is to raise creationist quibbles about the origins of phyla 500 million years ago, it looks to me like an implicit concession about the scope of evolution.
Do scientists, faced with a lack of evidence, normally "imagine" that none can be found?