The Design of a Bad Idea

The newly released ID book, The Design of Life, exemplifies everything that is wrong with ID.

1. It claims to be science, but it is, as is all ID, entangled with religion. It would be much better if it admitted to be apologetics that was of a science bent. That is, ID should not falsely claim to be science when in fact it is religiously motivated—it should embrace that which it seeks to hide. There is, I'm sure we all recall, an apostolic lesson about not being embarrassed about the gospel.
   


2. It is essentially a vanity publication, and is being released with great fanfare and a Benny-Hinn-like request for money. Science does not work that way. I hope Christians with money to give will consider giving it to charity or missions rather than to this exercise in egotism. (And they should not forget that one author is a member of a heretical cult, the Moonies. He should be evangelized, not applauded as a culture warrior.)
   




3. The authors, who are leading ID proponents, make the sort of claims that should not accompany the release of scientific literature. William Dembski, yet again, declares victory by fiat: "The Design of Life shows why the better arguments and stronger evidence are now on the intelligent design side." And Jonathan Wells argues by philosophical assertion: "The Design of Life shows why it is no longer possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Darwinist." These guys simply never learn the lesson: ixnay the yperbole-hay, it's not helpful. Not at all. If you have a theory, as you claim, then do the research, and publish the results.
   

What's new here? Nothing. This is not science. It is, at best, a misguided missile in the culture wars. At worst, it is an attempt at a money making venture.