Sunday, November 25, 2007

I think Kirk has some serious 'splainin' to do.


Over at Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog, we've recently been having a go at Intelligent Design advocate Kirk Durston, and one of the objections to Kirk's propaganda was the two-faced way he insisted on interchanging the terms "evolution" and "Darwinism" (or, similarly, "evolutionary biologist" and "Darwinist") as I suggested here.

Kirk responded in short order, explaining himself thusly:

3. I make a distinction between 'Darwinism' and biological evolution or evolutionary biology. Biological evolution is a process that goes on in the real world and can be studied. Darwinism, in my view, is an a priori commitment to completely materialistic explanations for the origin and diversity of life within which any intelligent role is necessarily excluded. That is what I object to.

A reasonable position ... except for the fact that Kirk doesn't stick to it, as you can read in one of his papers here, where he writes (as the first sentence in Section B):

There are, at present, two candidate theories for the origin and diversity of life. The first is ID and the second is Darwinism.

Ooooooh ... that doesn't look good, does it, Kirk? I would have thought that the two competing theories were ID and evolution. Poor Kirk -- that's the problem with lying; you have to work so hard to remember your lies. And, when you least expect it, they come back to bite you in the ass.

1 comment:

Kirk Durston said...

Just noticed this ancient post. You are mistaken in your assumption that ID and evolution are two competing theories. The two competing theories are not ID and evolution, they are ID and Darwinism. Biological evolution is part of both theories. There are two questions relevant to the origin and diversification of life. First, what process was used and, second, was intelligence part of that process? If we define evolution as 'the variation in allele frequencies in a population over time', then we can grant that evolution is part of the process. The question then remains, was intelligence also part of that process? Darwinism rules out any role for intelligence, ID claims that it was a) necessary and b) the fingerprints of intelligence are all over the encoding of the genomes of life. I am writing an article on this subject that I will eventually (probably by the end of 2013) post on my website SQyBLu.com