I've stumbled on a rather bizarre discussion between IDists and evolution proponents:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... arwinists/
I wanted to share it here because it slightly boggles my mind, to be honest. I mean the discussion that starts a bit further down in the long comments section mostly between the people called William, kairo-something, Axel, Jerad and Elizabeth. Basically we have there a couple of evolution proponents that sound knowledgable and reasonable to me, patiently counter arguing the rather obtuse sounding IDists claims that, among other things, science speaks about morality, evolution is not scientific, there is a conspiracy of "Darwinists", everybody should know what "Darwinist" means even if they seem to use it to describe a myriad of beliefs and moral positions, etc.
What's fascinating is that the IDists clearly think that they are the ones using reason and logic, and that evolution is a position arrived at only through either a desire to be free from moral constraints, or wilful lying, or an intellectually weak, emotional disposition.
What I'm wondering is that if an IDist were to read this discussion, would they read it as the IDists making the more sense? Would they read the same thing I do, but find the IDists holding the rational end of argumentation here? Because in my eyes, the IDists do so unbelievably, miserably badly here. Not just that, but their utter paranoia concerning Darwinist conspiracy, and their conviction that every opposing opinion and argument is made in bad faith, and their heavy usage of the word "lie" instead of actually responding to what is being argued, to me makes them seem almost mentally unstable. But they truly seem to think they are the ones upholding the torch of honest, informed discussion here.
I guess I was a bit surprised at how these IDists view evolution proponents so similarly to how we evolution proponents usually view IDists. Even if to me, the sides in this issue are not mirror images separated only by a different conclusion. I feel that ID has failed markedly at delivering anything that would count as convincing science, or even really a clear claim or suggested prediction value. Whereas evolution is backed by an abundance of science. So how is it possible that people who seem reasonably intelligent and articulate can sit at the ID end, look at the evolution end, and be convinced that science, reason, logic, and morality are not just unsatisfactory in the evolution camp but completely lacking and incompatible
What I started wondering, while reading a good chunk of the bizarre discussion I linked to, was whether it would look different to me
, if I happened to be an IDist, but otherwise the same in terms of desiring intellectual honesty and ability for reading comprehension and tastes in argumentation style. What do all those silent IDist onlookers of such a discussion think about it? It would be interesting to know.