Let's have compassion for Darwinists as they develop desperate theories positing the existence of an infinite number of universes. Many cloak themselves as objectively scientific, but that can't dodge even what secularists like novelist Kurt Vonnegut acknowledge: "My body and your body are miracles of design. Scientists are pretending they have the answer as to how we got this way when natural selection couldn't possibly have produced such machines."
- Marvin Olasky, "Dialogue with Darwinists: Key themes to remember on the birthday of 'On the Origin of Species'"
It seems to me that while Olasky discourages ridicule of Darwinism, he himself is ridiculing Darwinists.
It's important to understand the position you're arguing against, and to offer actual arguments rather than ridicule. But calling "Darwinists" (who does that refer to anyway?) "desperate" - isn't that ridicule? Sure, the whole multiverse concept seems a bit wacky, but a lot of science is wacky (what does Olasky think about quantum physics?) and not all Darwinists would buy into that anyway. I know this is only a short article, but Olasky's attacks are on the people, not the ideas - "muttering" Darwinists are "desperate" and "cloaking themselves in scientific objectivity" - i.e. they're not really scientists. I guess Intelligent Design proponents are articulate, calm and actually objective.
And to say that scientists are pretending to have the answers? I don't know of any scientists (apologists for atheistic science such as Dawkins and Dennett are a different matter) who would even claim to have absolute answers - science is more a search for answers, which are always acknowledged to be provisional (even Dawkins admits that we may end up chucking out Darwinism if we find a better theory). We look at the world, and think "wow, that's so amazing, how could things have ended up this way?" To say that God created and sustains the universe is one possible answer, but it's not a scientific explanation. It could be true (and I believe it is) but it doesn't tell us anything scientifically. And, in a sense, it doesn't affect the way science is done. Whether or not a scientist believes in creation, she will still be seeking physical explanations of natural processes. Can science prove or disprove the existence of a divine designer? I don't think so. The same evidence can be interpreted in different ways. One person sees evolution as the means by which God created, while another sees blind physical process.
And on the issue of "complexity" - where one person sees "irreducible complexity", another sees a question to be answered. Sure, we might not know right now how particular mechanisms within a cell developed, but that doesn't mean that we won't know some years down the track. Throughout the history of science, human knowledge of nature has constantly been expanding - constantly discovering new things, and finding out that things are more complex than we thought. Complexity is not a new thing - just a deepening thing. Why stop now, throw our hands up and say, we can't figure it out? People could have done that with the atom, once they realised it wasn't just like a billiard ball.
Anyway, this is a rambling, ill-thought out post. Brain not working - blame the PhD. Just felt like a little rant. I know there are people who may read this blog who will disagree with me, and that's fine. Just don't expect me to get into a deep discussion about it - maybe after the thesis is done, but I really don't have the time or mental energy right now. And please, if you do want to criticise what I say, have the decency to leave your name. Thanks!
