This from a fellow CSC Fellow:
Sunday's New York Times carries an op-ed by philosopher Daniel C. Dennett implying that intelligent design theory (ID) is a hoax because it lacks scientific content. In the process, Dennett uncritically perpetuates various falsehoods commonly used to prop up Darwin's outdated theory.For example, Dennett claims that "contemporary biology has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt" that natural selection--"a tournament of blind trial and error"--"has the power to generate breathtakingly ingenious designs." Yet natural selection has never been demonstrated to produce even one new species, much less new organs and body plans--the "ingenious designs" to which Dennett refers. Natural selection, like artificial selection, produces only minor changes in existing species.
In an attempt to provide evidence for the power of Darwinian evolution, Dennett cites the eye. He claims that "we have detailed computer models" to demonstrate how the camera-like eyes of vertebrates evolved from primitive light-sensitive spots. Yet as mathematician David Berlinski has shown, such computer models are a myth.
Dennett also writes: "All it takes is a rare accident that gives one lucky animal a mutation that improves its vision over that of its siblings." But such mutations have never been observed! No matter; Dennett's hand is faster than the eye, and he quickly concludes: "Since these lucky improvements accumulate - this was Darwin's insight - eyes can automatically get better and better and better, without any intelligent designer." Pull some imaginary mutations out of hat, wave the magic wand, and presto!
Dennett goes on to claim that the vertebrate retina is inside out, confirming "the mindlessness of the historical process." Yet as biologist Michael Denton has shown, the orientation of the vertebrate retina makes perfect physiological sense.
Thinking his fantasies about eye evolution have nailed the coffin shut on ID, Dennett continues by perpetuating various other myths. For example, he tries to make ID look absurd by comparing it to the claim that "the earth is flat." But this is a tired old canard. Even modestly educated Christians throughout the Middle Ages knew not only that the Earth is round but also approximately how big it is. The Flat Earth Myth began as fiction in 1828 and was elevated to a historical claim by late 19th century Darwinists intent on discrediting their critics. Dennett should know better.
Dennett then indulges in the usual misrepresentation of ID as an argument from ignorance. "You haven't explained everything yet," is the straw man he erects in place of ID's actual position, which is that design can be inferred only after one knows enough about a feature to justify the inference. An ID theorist does not say "Wow, this is too complex for me to understand, therefore it must be designed," but "I now know enough about this feature to convince me that it could not have originated in a Darwinian fashion but has the hallmarks of something made by design."
Finally, Dennett falsely claims that "proponents of intelligent design have not produced anything like… experiments with results that challenge any mainstream biological understanding." Apparently, Dennett did not bother to visit Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture web site, which would have directed him to some of the scientific research and scholarship published by ID proponents, including experiments that challenge Darwinian evolution.
Instead of presenting any real science--or even laying out the issues accurately--Dennett merely repeats the standard Darwinian mantra: "The designs found in nature are nothing short of brilliant, but the process of design that generates them is utterly lacking in intelligence of its own." This may serve the needs of Dennett's atheistic philosophy, but it is sham science.
