The Coming Collapse of a Popular Anti-ID Argument
by MikeGeneBack in May 2006, Anthony Dick, who is an associate editor of National Review, reviewed the movie Flock of Dodos. Dick makes some interesting comments concerning the arrogance of those who would peer review the concept of ID:
Olson illustrates (and perhaps exaggerates) the evolutionists' difficulties. In one of the film's more amusing scenes, several Harvard biologists huddle around a poker table and get progressively drunker as they banter and bicker and bemoan the rise of the ID movement. Their conversation is intelligent and entertaining, but it's also annoyingly haughty and dense. In various interviews, the opacity and rudeness of these scientists contrasts sharply with the cordial, down-to-earth demeanor of the average IDer. Contrary to the snobbish stereotype, these ID supporters are not ignorant and prejudiced rednecks, but rather well-dressed, well-meaning, and educated people. Their only obvious failing is that they happen to be wrong about a fairly esoteric question with a counterintuitive answer. And this, as Olson points out, should hardly be the cause of any serious animosity between mature adults.
But then he says something that I find even more interesting:
But what about the bigger question: Even if ID is not properly suited to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, how about as a non-scientific theory? Here there are two points to be made against ID, and Olson picks up on only one of them"”but he nails it.
Olson's exposition of this first point hinges on what has become the biggest buzzword in the ID movement: "irreducible complexity." This concept is the golden calf of ID advocates, who argue that there are some biological structures that are so complex that they could not possibly have evolved through the Darwinian process of genetic mutation and natural selection. The proper functioning of these structures, they claim, requires the simultaneous operation of numerous different components. These components supposedly could not have been of any use to an organism if they had evolved individually on a gradual timescale, so it is not clear how they could have evolved together to form the larger structures.
And so? Do IDers modestly conclude from this that they may have found an interesting challenge that should be the topic of further discussion and investigation?
Well, not exactly: They conclude that, because we can't presently think of a way that some complex biological structures evolved naturally, these structures must have been fashioned by an intelligent designer. Here you will want to fire up your camcorders: Rarely will you see a logical long-jump that hurdles so many acres of careful reasoning with such soaring ease. If ever there was a record-breaking flight of fallacy, surely this is it.
Olson correctly identifies this "irreducible complexity" canard as a textbook example of "God of the gaps" reasoning, whereby one finds a gap in human understanding of the world, and then immediately plugs this gap by invoking divine intervention. It is by the same thought process that the ancient Greeks deduced the existence of an angry Zeus hurling thunderbolts.
Read it again for historical reasons. Why? It won't be much longer before this little book comes out. And when it does, Dick's entire 318-word argument crashes and burns.
Bye, bye, old anti-ID argument(s). 
February 10th, 2007 at 2:46 am
Mike,
What's the latest word on the publication date? I'm eager to do my part in support of ID research by buying a copy.
Comment by keiths — February 10, 2007 @ 2:46 am
February 10th, 2007 at 3:22 am
I just don't see it. There is literally overwhelming evidence that intelligent designers can construct irreducibly complex systems; many sorts of technology are IC. If no plausible way for IC systems to be created without recourse to intelligence can be conceived, then it seems reasonable to conclude that a given IC system was intelligently designed.
An ID critic might reject the concept of irreducible complexity, they might deny that any biological systems are IC, or they might claim to show how IC systems can be effected without intelligent cause. But, having granted that some biological systems are IC, and having no explanation for how IC systems can be effected without intelligent agency, to then decry a design inference as 'God of the Gaps' is pure bunk. It's simple inferential logic; we know that intelligent agents create IC systems, we know of no unintelligent processes which do the same. Therefore it is reasonable to infer that a given IC system has had an intelligent cause.
Comment by BenK — February 10, 2007 @ 3:22 am
February 10th, 2007 at 5:15 am
Mike, if you want, I can offer my endorsement for you to include on the back cover, to go along with your having given me due credit for helping you in your cause and Internet missions. It's the least I can do. (If you want me to do more, I am willing to write up to half the book.)
Comment by Douglas — February 10, 2007 @ 5:15 am
February 10th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I wasn't aware that the ancient Greeks looked at lightning and thought, "There can be no natural explanation for that; it must be the gods!"
Comment by thechristiancynic — February 10, 2007 @ 9:22 am
February 10th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Douglas,
I think you'd have to audition for that role.
Comment by MikeGene — February 10, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
February 10th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Phffttthh! I've already bought my copy, keiths. What are YOU waiting for?
Comment by Joy — February 10, 2007 @ 6:24 pm
February 10th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Mike,
I thought I already have.
Comment by Douglas — February 10, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
February 10th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Douglas,
You applied; you didn't audition.
Comment by MikeGene — February 10, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
February 10th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Well, it's not that I don't trust Mike or anything, but I want to know that the book's been published before I hand over my money.
Won't you feel stupid when Mike skips the country without publishing (or even having written) the book, using the pre-order proceeds to finance a lavish Bahamian exile?
I need to know my money's going for ID research, not piña coladas.
Comment by keiths — February 10, 2007 @ 10:50 pm
February 10th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Mike,
Audition? Audition?? Sounds challenging. Okay, so what do I have to do (or not do)?
Comment by Douglas — February 10, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
February 10th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
That's fair. But I can promise that those who have already pre-ordered will indeed get their book. In fact, as I understand it, the pre-orders will be sent out several weeks before the official release date.
Comment by MikeGene — February 10, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
February 10th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Douglas,
Well, let's see a sample endorsement that is 50 words or less.
Comment by MikeGene — February 10, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
February 11th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Okay:
"Mike Gene. It's not his real name, and no one knows if he is a he or a she, but none of that matters, because it's his (or her) book in any case. And never underestimate the power of the arguments of a pseudonymous Internet persona - I know I don't."
Comment by Douglas — February 11, 2007 @ 4:43 am
February 11th, 2007 at 4:52 am
That's great! Mind if I blog this endorsement?
Comment by MikeGene — February 11, 2007 @ 4:52 am
February 11th, 2007 at 4:58 am
Go right ahead. But I want 25% of any royalties which accrue, or an autographed white rabbit, whichever is more inconvenient for you.
Comment by Douglas — February 11, 2007 @ 4:58 am
February 11th, 2007 at 4:59 am
By the way, I edited in a comment in the "Discussion" portion of your bio at (what's the name?) "ResearchID.org".
Comment by Douglas — February 11, 2007 @ 4:59 am
February 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Hi Mike — not to be paranoid, but is there any chance you are getting ripped off by the publisher? Especially since this your book looks like the only book this Arbor Vitae Press has ever done. Another alternative besides conspiracy is that they don't know what they are doing.
Comment by Nick Matzke — February 11, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
February 11th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Nick Matzke:
I doubt they don't know how, as publishing a book isn't nearly as difficult as publishing a 4-color magazine used to be, before Photoshop seps, computer-generated halftones, and in-house typesetting on Pagemaker or some equivalent. Don't even need a darkroom anymore. Now you can do it from a desktop, the forms-setter sends it straight to the platemaker via disk and the whole process is automated. Of course, it's always best if that desktop is a Mac…
If Mike has any real problems on that end, I'll do it for him.
Comment by Joy — February 11, 2007 @ 4:34 pm