Recently over at PS, IDist Eric Michael Holloway wrote the following to describe himself & why he accepts/believes in IDT: “we software engineers find ID so obvious.” (https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-we-do-not-evolve-software/3760/2) I’d like to unpack this statement & challenge the (il)logic behind it & Eric’s views of IDT, given that he is closely linked with the Discovery Institute, Robert Marks & the new Bradley Centre. Personally I find it rather sad & troubling that ideological IDists like Eric are still actively attempting to deceive others with a semantic game, even their fellow religious, while ignoring the ‘game-ending’ points that Abrahamic monotheists who are scholars & scientists, along with not a small # of atheists & agnostics, have levelled at IDT/IDism. IDists have shown time & time again that they either cannot or will not respond to calm, careful, exact criticism, so let us see if Eric Michael Holloway will be any different.
The other side of Eric Michael Holloway’s blindness to semantic accuracy in this case is that indeed, people are doing a lot of ‘designing,’ sometimes even bad designing around the world. It’s not just software engineers who see ‘bad designs’ or ‘good designs’, but rather we can learn where & when to properly make use of ‘design thinking’ in everyday life and more likely specifically in work situations. This kind of ‘design’ that doesn’t need the qualifier ‘intelligent’ before it contrasts with Eric’s tricksy theory from Seattle that includes ‘Intelligence/intelligence’ yet intentionally without identifying it. IDT thus operates at far too abstract a level for most people to do much with, while ‘real design theory’ is used ubiquitously throughout multiple fields of the contemporary academy and is widely practised even today in business, research & development, planning, operations & of course engineering. This ‘design thinking’ is simply not IDT & Eric Michael Holloway likely knows this already. The stubborn intent to propagandize the ideology of IDism by IDists is what has led to the IDM-specific affliction now known as ‘Expelled Syndrome,’ where IDists languish on the margins academically & scientifically, as well as culturally, even while some aspects of their overall critique are valid without their IDT making such grand claims.
While it’s rather obvious that computer engineers & developers design & code software and not even necessary to say that ‘computers are designed,’ it’s a rather different conversation when the main topic is origins of life, origins of information or origins of humanity, which is what the leaders of the Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) say is the main focus of ‘Intelligent Design’ theory (IDT). The IDM & its leaders, however, appear both rather confused & stubborn about their confusion. It’s leaders are notorious double-talkers between divine Creation and human-made design. This is on display in the vast array of human-made designs that the IDM has used as analogies (mousetrap, flower arrangements, Mt. Rushmore, etc.) to divine ‘Design’ & Creation in their works. It is well known that they have an overtly political & rhetorical strategy (which I discovered while visiting the DI’s summer program in 2008) of not capitalising ‘Intelligent Design,’ though divine ‘Design’ & Creation is precisely what 95%+ of them actually mean, when promoting and trying to defend their ‘strictly scientific’ theory about the origins of life, information & humanity. It’s a theory defended ambitiously by unsupportable claims & the IDM leadership knows this, but won’t answer for this to anyone publicly, which sadly makes them unworthy of trust or admiration.
Frankly, I really don’t understand how IDists can deny that they continue to double-talk while they refuse to identify legitimate ‘design thinking,’ ‘design theory’ & ‘design theorists,’ all of which imply/infer /intelligence, and their over-rhetorical position, beating the same drum since the mid-90s, already here in 2019. Could somebody here please explain with some modicrum of kindness or at least even-handedness why IDists do this when their bluff has already long been called, not just by atheists & agnostics, but also by religious theists? Will Eric Michael Holloway return to TSZ & attempt to clear his name by distinguishing two types of ‘design/Design’ that the IDM leadership will not? Or is he instead resolved to carry a battered & sinking IDist reputation with him for his career, not only among atheists & agnostics, but among those scholars & scientists who share his religious worldview, yet reject the juvenile ideology that he is now apparently possessed by that according to IDM rules actually requires his dishonesty?
Do software engineers find ‘Intelligent Design’ theory obvious, trivial or irrelevant? Please share your explanation here.