"Intelligent Design" Creationism Is An Immoral Fraud

themselves to the liberal establishment.

Creationism is nice story without any basis in fact, but "fraud?" These benighted souls believe in it the same way Islamicists believe in their hateful nonsense. At least creationists are not blowing up any buses.

I mostly just lurk here, but wanted to express kudos to Sahotra on this article. I'd also like to let other Jewcy readers know that if they are interested in reading some really informed scientific debate on evolution and natural selection, you should check out the forum devoted solely to this topic at the Richard Dawkins website. (link below) Dr. Dawkins is author of The Selfish Gene, (a seminal work in the field and where the 'meme' concept originated), and more recently The God Delusion.

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=4]

PS. This reminds me why I hardly ever post here any more. Craig, when are you ever going to get this site in line code-wise with everywhere else on the net? With all the great articles on this site it's a real travesty there isn't more discussion, and the format is the major reason, IMO. 

Although I agree with Professor Sarkar's condemnation of ID creationism, I have to assume that Professor Sarkar's piece was cut by some editorial staff members. No self-respecting philosophy professor would argue that we should reject ID creationism because they have provided "no viable alternative." Astrologists have used this sort of argument too. They have argued that astrological predictions are true because no one has proved that they fail to predict the future. That no one has an alternative explanation for the so-called predictive success of astrology doesn't make it correct. Same too goes for Professor Sarkar's argument.

At the end of his post, Professor Sarkar has attempted to show the slippery logic of Expelled. He has done so by assuming the ID creationist's argument: since evolutionary theory leads to unwanted political consequences, evolutionary theory is false. He has asserted that such reasoning may lead to "intelligent alchemy" or intelligent pangenesis." But Professor Sarkar fails to give a reason for the ID creationist to take up these alternatives to chemistry or molecular genetics. We mustn't assume the ID creationist will reject chemistry or molecular genetics. Perhaps God has somehow endowed these disciplines to us - even though that just sounds silly.

It would please me very much to hear more from Professor Sarkar and how mistaken I am in my analysis of his pithy arguments.

I've seen the film. This short article merely highlights one particular aspect of the movie, which even Ben Stein and David Berlinksi clearly indiciate, along with Sarkar, doesn't guarentee genocide. Berlinski makes it very clear that he does not believe that Darwinian evolution is sufficient for justification for genocide, though he believes it necessary. This is such a minor point in the movie unless someone finds that so offensive that they forget the remaining 1 hour and 15 minutes of content. Sarkar lists some sources that provide evidence for evolution, but I'm really starting to think that Stein is right. People like Sarkar just say what every other evolutionist is saying, "the evidence is overwhelming... it's silly to believe otherwise.." These are simply opinions, because they do nothing to answer the specific arguments in the movie itself. Darwinism is truly a religion that is starting to feel what it is like to be persecuted, and it just gets loud and angry, which I think goes further to justify the belief that Darwinianism is a cherished philosophical committment. I'm some will rant against this comment I am posting, and that will just prove my point. Sober, sound, arguments to the contrary, however are always welcome. Peace.

Sarkar's establishment-typical diatribe, like Brian Leiter's, from whose link I here arrived, is argument-vacuous. He attacks a tiny strawman and effectively asserts that the only unfortunate social aspect of science is the misappropriation of science as opposed to its distortion or corruption, thereby juxtaposing an entire academic subject area known as the sociology of knowledge.  He further regales ID for a lack of any credible argument or positive evidence, though he must know that the argument from design has a solid presence in the history of philosophy, continuing to this day via such as Flew, and that the positive evidence is simply the dumbfounding biological order all around us.

But, you see, "credible" here means "currently fashionable among academics and intellectuals" and "positive evidence" means "positive evidence according to most who consider their opinion based on experiment or at least unbiased collective speculation." 

Does this sound like conspiracy theory?  Well and good; the sociological aspects of this theory fast becoming established under any other name as the law of effective conspiracy by scholars in the sociology of knowledge.  And from the common sense side, since when has academia, religion, government or media not been overflowing with such predictable and pedestrian crap?

BTW for the ad-hominem challenged, I don't believe in a supreme being (or three).  I'm also a generally nice guy when I don't see underdogs getting bulldozed with bullshit from every side.

I completely agree. It is a testament to the constraints on knowledge provided by various socio-historical (and personal) contexts that leads to the consistent reaffirmation by ID proponents that evolution has no basis, when every one of the objections has already been met (most, by the way, during Darwin's time or in his book [such as many accusations against the lack of a fossil record, which Darwin is able to use in support of his theory!]).

 But while I agree with everything you say, I just want to point out something about the last paragraph. (While we are pointing out specious arguments on the part of ID, we should be extra wary of rhetoric on our part.) I think it is a false analogy to compare eugenics and antisemitism to the atom bomb and biological weapons. Simply put, the atom bomb and biological weapons work just because of the scientific theories underlying them. But eugenics really didn't work, partly because the science was bad. The argument might be made that eugenics reflects badly on the theory of evolution ([sic] because evolution is a fact, and the explanatory theory is natural selection) precisely because it didn't work, and was largely a political movement. I do not think this objection carries much water, but I figure we should be highly analytic of our own positions. And as rhetorically significant as those analogies are, I think we should be wary of using them too seriously as a reductio ad absurdum.

"These are simply opinions, because they do nothing to answer the specific arguments in the movie itself."

 Why should that follow? Even if the argument is a straw man, it does not follow that it lacks argumentative legitimacy completely, but only contextually. Which is to say, they may be perfectly sound arguments, even if they are directed against a misinterpreted position.

 "Darwinism is truly a religion that is starting to feel what it is like to be persecuted, and it just gets loud and angry, which I think goes further to justify the belief that Darwinianism is a cherished philosophical committment."

Nothing should be held or argued dogmatically. But it is not clear exactly what is involved in the strong pro-Darwin sentiment (which I am part of). The statement above starts out as an ad hominem, and, whats more, the latter part does not follow (or at least its implication, for why should a "cherished philosophical commitment" be devoid of legitimacy?)

 I hope this is sober and sound.

 As for another commenter who posted regarding the sociology of knowledge. I completely agree with the premise. Science cannot be abstracted from the socio-historical conditions of its production, and this is not reducible to talking about how science is "used," as if this is some separate sphere from the actual historical production of scientific knowledge.

 "Conspiracy" might be pushing it, however. It is not a collective, conscious effort, nor is it at all unitary. One of the defining characteristics of science as a social field is its absolute competition, not just over theories but over the stakes and definition of scientific capital. And certainly it is fallacious to presume that because science (or specifically evolution by natural selection) is socially constituted and produced it's cogency is even minutely challenged--for it is just to say that the very criteria of cogency are socially conditioned. And this is to leave in place the absolute constraints on an argument's cogency. (I may not have responded much to the post, because by this point I am just going by memory, as the post is not in front of me.)

 -Anonymous3

Yes, Darwinism, and Naturalism in general (nobody is completely sure what this really means) in philosophy have become religion in the clearest sense. I would say Creationists and Naturalists are equally dogmatic. They should go and read some analytic metaphysics, and philosophy in general...

Since people like throwing around the names of informal fallacies, it might be worth pointing out the following red herring:

"he must know that the argument from design has a solid presence in the
history of philosophy, continuing to this day via such as Flew"

This is pretty clearly just an attempt to shift the topic away from the main argument. Beyond this, though, it is fairly ridiculous point for the following reasons:

1) All sorts of ideas have a "solid presence in the history of philosophy," (including ideas that conflict with one another--are contradictories to be valued equally because of their history?)--that history obviously does not make them true, or worthwhile.

2) Furthermore, there is a solid place in the history of philosophy for refutations of the argument from design--so what of that?

3) Also, there are scads of ideas which played a promient role at various points in the history of philosophy but which are not currently regarded very highly. Flew aside, the argument from design is clearly one such idea.

4)Finally, and really most pertinently---the original post is about the current state of the biological sciences--not philosophy (and this is really where the comment becomes a red herring). Even if it is accorded respect by some philosophers historical or contemporary, the argument from design is still clearly not a scientific theory by current standards.

Ibrahim above notes that no self respecting philsophy professor would argue that we should reject a position simply because it offers no positive alternative to evolution. Perhaps, but ID creationism really is empty. It offers no positive scientific case for itself and its attempts at a scientific criticism of evolution are old and weak. To pick one of the more widely known: irreducible complexity is only a barrier to additive only construction; once you allow for scaffolding that can be later removed, the "problem" of irreducible complexity disappears. Attempts by ID activists to make either a positive or negative case using the mathematics of information theory fall apart if they define their terms formally, so most IDers avoid this part. A lot of ID is warmed over Paley. So ID really has no place at the table as science.

 Since ID can't make it's case from within science, it tries to make it's case from outside. Which is what Prof. Sarkar's article addresses. Personally, I thought he should have noted that Hitler was probably more indebted to the Pasteur's germ theory of disease than he was to Darwin's theory of biological change over time based on heredity and differential reproductive success. If one looks to the metaphors that Hitler used to his political advantage, he more frequently referred to the Volk as an organism and to us as a disease than he did to any of Darwin's ideas.

 And to Anonymous above, if you consider this piece to be a poor response, perhaps you will be better satisfied with www.expelledexposed.com . In short, if your reputation depends on a demonstrated understanding of a topic, it's not persecution when you are criticised for demonstrating the opposite.

Anonymous wrote: "Darwinism is truly a religion that is starting to feel what it is like
to be persecuted, and it just gets loud and angry, which I think goes
further to justify the belief that Darwinianism is a cherished
philosophical committment. I'm some will rant against this comment I am
posting, and that will just prove my point. Sober, sound, arguments to
the contrary, however are always welcome. Peace."

It's rather absurd that you follow up that ad hominem fallacy with a demand that other people provide "sober, sound arguments". How about holding yourself to the same standard you hold others? You certainly have not provided any sober, sound arguments against evolution. Rather, you have attacked evolutionists and then laid down a proclamation that they are the ones who must be reasonable, not yourself.

Evolution can be demonstrated through an enormous amount of scientific evidence and reasoning. Patterns consistent with those predicted by the theory are found in the biogeographical distribution of species on the planet. Offshore islands, for instance, contain modified versions of species found on whatever mainland is nearby, rather than their own special species. Homologous structures, from skeletons all the way down to single molecules, show endless modifications and alterations of the same underlying structures. For examples, the bone structure of your arm can be found, bone for bone, in bat wings and whale fins. Genomics has demonstrated that all life on Earth has DNA in common--for instance, you share roughly 30% of your DNA with wheat. DNA is the mechanism of inheritance, and the only way to get your DNA is through inheritance, so the commonalities of DNA in all life is a very strong argument for common ancestry. Embryology shows that many of the features of even very disparate creatures--such as humans and fish--are actually different modifications of the same embryological structures. For instance, human and fish embryos both develop pharyngeal arches, but in humans they become the jawbone and inner ear, whereas in fish they develop into gills. Primatologists have found synapomorphies of humans and chimpanzees which go beyond their bodies--similarities in behavior, reasoning, moral action, cultures, tool use, etc. Frans de Waal's book "Primates and Philosophers" contains a wealth of information on chimpanzee behavior corroborating the theory that we share a common ancestor with them.

There is an immense amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, amounting to an incredibly strong inductive argument in favor of the theory. And there is nothing at all to support creationism (or ID or whatever they're calling it now). None of the patterns in biology, biogeography, palaeontology, genomics, embryology, nor any other field fit the hypothesis that lifeforms were specially created. Quite the opposite, all of these diverse lines of evidence fit exactly the patterns one would expect if all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor over billions of years, with natural selection as the primary mechanism (genetic drift would also have contributed).

Creationists rely on insulting evolutionists, calling evolution "religion", accusing everyone but themselves of acting on preconceptions and prejudices, and proclaiming themselves to be persecuted, selectively employing postmodernist relativism, and quoting scientists out of context, but they can't produce the one and only thing that counts in science--physical evidence. Biology relies on studying life forms themselves, both in the lab and in the field, and has produced an enormous amount of observational and experimental evidence, all of which shows exactly the patterns the theory of evolution predicts one would find.

Creationist insults against evolution that it is "religion", quite simply, are nothing but projection and hypocrisy.

Here is the structure of your argument exposed:

Sarkar lists some sources that provide evidence for the idea that the earth is round, but I'm
really starting to think that Stein is right. People like Sarkar just
say what every other defender of the round-earth hypothesis is saying, "the evidence is
overwhelming... it's silly to believe otherwise.." These are simply
opinions, because they do nothing to answer the specific arguments in the movie itself. The idea that the earth is round is truly a religion that is starting to
feel what it is like to be persecuted, and it just gets loud and angry,
which I think goes further to justify the belief that round-earth is a
cherished philosophical committment. I'm some will rant against this
comment I am posting, and that will just prove my point. Sober, sound,
arguments to the contrary, however are always welcome."

What are you really looking for in addition to evidence? What else can we do but to point to the evidence and debunk the arguments people are using to support the contrary idea? The arguments made in the movie are thoroughly refuted elsewhere (see e.g. the expelled exposed website). The dilemma Sarkar is pointing out is that proponents of creationism respond to evidence not by changing beliefs accordingly, but - because ideological reasons overrule truth - by trying to attack their "opponent" from another angle. And that's where it gets ugly. When people are starting to lie and twist the truth to serve ideological purposes. Sounds familiar, by the way?

Atheistic/Materialistic/Naturalistic Evolutionists -- and please note the construction; I am not equating the four terms, merely using the first three as interchangeable modifiers of a subcategory of the forth -- routinely portray themselves as champions of reason over faith.  They pride themselves on their intellectual acuity and courage; but what they continually demonstrate is intellectual paucity and timidity.

I have been waiting 30 years for one of them to refute CS Lewis' arguments for the necessity of a supernatural basis for either morality (Mere Christianity) or reason (Miracles: A Preliminary Study).  Most of the attempts I've been pointed to have simply failed to grasp the argument (paucity).  Most of the others, like Prof. Sarkar above, have lacked to courage to follow the logical necessity of their position; that, in fact, if "We have evolved [i.e., by purely natural means] a mind and, with it, culture as well as moral capacities and what we think of as free will ..." then both reason and morality are simply accidents of nature.  Indeed, it was that "great British evolutionary biologist J.B.S. Haldane," who said:  "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms [or neurons] in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." (Possible Worlds, p. 209, as quoted by Lewis in Miracles)

Then are those few who are brave enough to allow that if materialistic evolution is true then "morality" and "reason" must be accidents of nature, and what we mean by them must be an illusion ... and immediately proceed to to champion one accident of nature, reason, over another, faith, and/or take an equally nonsensical position that, oh, say for example, " 'Intelligent Design' Creationism Is An Immoral Fraud."

Since people like throwing around the names of informal fallacies, it might be worth pointing out the following red herring:

"he must know that the argument from design has a solid presence in the
history of philosophy, continuing to this day via such as Flew"

This is pretty clearly just an attempt to shift the topic away from the main argument. Beyond this, though, it is fairly ridiculous point for the following reasons:

 1) All sorts of ideas have a "solid presence in the history of philosophy," (including ideas that conflict with one another--are contradictories to be valued equally because of their history?)--that history obviously does not make them true, or worthwhile.

Since "credible" was the term in question, I'll take your point and grant that the laplacian/darwinist worldview is not necessarily credible. 

 2) Furthermore, there is a solid place in the history of philosophy for refutations of the argument from design--so what of that?

Perhaps they are credible too, sweet.

3) Also, there are scads of ideas which played a promient role at various points in the history of philosophy but which are not currently regarded very highly. Flew aside, the argument from design is clearly one such idea.

You dance to my tune: ""credible" here means "currently fashionable among academics and intellectuals""

4)Finally, and really most pertinently---the original post is about the current state of the biological sciences--not philosophy (and this is really where the comment becomes a red herring). Even if it is accorded respect by some philosophers historical or contemporary, the argument from design is still clearly not a scientific theory by current standards.

Current standards: ""positive evidence" means "positive evidence according to most who consider their opinion based on experiment or at least unbiased collective speculation.""

Stein's film is about sociological and philosophical discrimination in science, so it's look to me like your whole post is "pretty clearly just an attempt to shift attention away from the main" issue.  

Red herrings indeed, rather fermented too. 

``I have been waiting 30 years for one of them to refute CS Lewis' arguments for the necessity of a supernatural basis for either morality (Mere Christianity) or reason (Miracles: A Preliminary Study).  Most of the attempts I've been pointed to have simply failed to grasp the argument (paucity).''

Yes, of course. It couldn't possibly be that Lewis' "arguments" pretty much assume their conclusions and are thus only convincing to those who already grant those conclusions.

 Then are those few who are brave enough to allow that if materialistic evolution is true then "morality" and "reason" must be accidents of nature, and what we mean by them must be an illusion.

Natural does not imply random or accidental. Actions have significant non-random consequences in nature all the time -- and once one recognizes this, the "necessity" of a supernatural imposition of order on nature disappears. I do not grant that order in the nature is accidental, nor do I grant the necessity of an external  imposition of order on nature.

... nonsensical position that, oh, say for example, " 'Intelligent Design' Creationism Is An Immoral Fraud."

Even if one accepts your premise that naturalistic morality is without foundation, which I don't,  one could still point that that ID creationists are that they are (1) seeking to claim for themselves the authority of science without doing the work of science, that they are (2) falsely claiming persecution and that they are (3) smearing science by ridiculously claiming that Darwin was necessary if not sufficient for Hitler -- as if nobody could have possibly sought to exterminate an entire people without believing that dolphins and people shared a common ancestor (it's almost as if they'd never heard of Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.)

Craig Pennington said, "...ID creationists[sic] are ....smearing science by ridiculously claiming that Darwin was necessary if
not sufficient for Hitler -- as if nobody could have possibly sought to
exterminate an entire people without believing that dolphins and people
shared a common ancestor (it's almost as if they'd never heard of
Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies.)"

Hitler argued that a scientific consensus was indeed necessary:

Old-fashioned antisemitism, Hitler argued, was
insufficient, and would lead only to progroms, which contribute little
to a permanent solution. This is why, Hitler maintained, it was
important to promote ‘an antisemitism of reason,’ one that acknowledged
the racial basis of Jewry. (Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in
Nazi Germany by Alan Steinweis :8)

Interviews with Nazis by other historians show that the Nazis
thought that their views were rooted in biology, not historical
prejudices. For example:

S. became a missionary for this biomedical vision… As
for anti-Semitic attitudes and actions, he insisted that “the racial
question… [and] resentment of the Jewish race… had nothing to do with
medieval anti-Semitism…” That is, it was all a matter of scientific
biology and of community. (The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the
Psychology of Genocide by Robert Lifton :130)

I just tried to publish this in an article on Wikipedia but a Darwinists censored
it, perhaps ironically making the point about the proto-Nazi nature of
their “biological thinking.” As the Nazis put it:

"Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or
less under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun
particularly around the middle of the last century, by the teachings of
Darwin, Mendel, and Galton and afterwards has been advanced by the
studies of Ploetz, Schallmeyer,Correns, de Vries, Tschermak, Baur,
Riidin, Fischer,Lenz, and others. Though it took decades before the
courage was found, on the basis of the initial findings of the natural
sciences, to carry on a systematic study of heredity, the progress of
the teaching and its application to man could not be delayed any more.
It was recognizedthat the natural laws discovered for plants and
animals ought also to be valid for man, and this could fully and
completely be confirmed during the last three decades both through
family research (Familienforschung) and through the study of bastards
and twins."
(Hitler’s Professors: The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s Crimes
against the Jewish People by Max Weinreich (New York: The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33)

It is true, people have a history of killing each other no matter what they say they believe. Yet, if you research it out to the end I think you'll find that what people believe has a causal impact so if they are being honest when they tell you what they believe then you have a general guide with respect to what they will do.

Craig Pennington wrote: "To pick one of the more widely known: irreducible complexity is only a
barrier to additive only construction; once you allow for scaffolding
that can be later removed, the 'problem' of irreducible complexity
disappears".

Once you allow people to begin citing their own imaginations as the equivalent of empirical evidence anything is possible. Irreducible complexity stands opposed to Darwinian reasoning which is the material of satire: "If I could be shown an organism which I could not imagine coming about in a series of steps that seem natural to me then my theory would absolutely break down. I can imagine things so my theory is verified!"

The mistake is this, irreducible complexity is defined by empirical evidence that can be observed and therefore a lot of Darwinian reasoning isn't on a par with it in the first place. It is verifiable and observable, imagining past events is not. What can generally be observed empirically is typically a
form of irreducible complexity where if a part is taken away then a
lack of function results. For sociological, psychological, political,
theological or some other reason many scientists do not treat what is
generally observed as the evidence that it is. Biologists are being trained to neglect empirical observation and instead focus on
proposing "feasible evolutionary" routes . Irreducible complexity isn't an "argument" similar
to Darwinian reasoning, it's generally an empirical observation which
can be observed in the form and function of organisms. If imagining things about the past is not treated as the
equivalent of empirical evidence you quickly see that imaginary events do not change empirical facts or explain the history of
all biological specification, form and species.

What is quite strange to me, is why so many of you supposed 'really I am not one of THOSE religious types' types try an cloak your attempts at a straightforward pogrom, in the rhetoric of being supposed watchdogs against some wave of fascist, dominating 'scientism' world view, which threatens to crush any counter-opinion or view under its boot.

Why don't you just come out and take your position in a more honest and rigorous way? I am not sure why you feel you need to try and take on the issue on formally logical grounds, that issue has been gone for roughly 300 years. Or why you try and show some foundational weakness in evolutionary biology "there really is NO empirical evidence for Darwinism!!!" which yes, has shown that Darwin's theory was not complex enough to account for all the features we are discovering in molecular and cellular biology now...features themselves which offer simply more proof for how evolution is true. Why don't you simply do as some of your compatriots do, and take your side? I wonder at the brutal circularity of your arguments in their reliance on what they argue against.

I suggest you simply take your beliefs as such. We have never really needed evidence to believe things, as a species (or a creation per se), take your pick. So if you want to believe such things, just do so honestly, because you feel it. What do you need sound and rational argumentation for when you have that? Really? You really want evidence of a kind that is un-conceptualizable, by definition, for the reality of something which is un-concevable, by definition? You simply don't need such things when you already have made a decision...based on the sensations you have of your creator, which realistically, are all you can ever hope to have. Stop acting.

Don't be surprised though when many of us think your beliefs are wrong, because thats where all the trouble starts, thats where your drive from this sensations gets us all into trouble. If I think your out of your fucking rabid ass mind, what does that have to do AT ALL with your feelings about creation? I can still manage my view without wanting to convince you of a damm thing, really...I don't care if you don't believe me. Extend me the same courtesy.

Scientism as a threat? Really?

"I can still manage my view without wanting to convince you of a damm thing, really...I don't care if you don't believe me. Extend me the same courtesy."

 I'm not convinced of a damn thing in your post.  Equivalent courtesy extended.

Any bits of the American tradition that inspired the Holocaust are best left in the dustbin of history.

 Great article!

And this, class, is a perfect example of the Anonymous internet comment. Notice how it manages not only to be a non sequitur and a red herring meant to distract from the real discussion, but how it also showcases the author's own uneducated, bigoted hatred of cultures different than his own which he has zero experience with. It is of particular importance to note that this bigotry takes the form of sweeping generalization, for instance, that all Islamic intellectuals spend their weekends tying bombs to their bellies and incinerating mass transit.

Christopher Watts wrote:

What can generally be observed empirically is typically a
form of irreducible complexity where if a part is taken away then a
lack of function results.

Right, but the conclusion that is then drawn ("It could not have possibly evolved by natural means") does not follow from that observation. If the concept of irreducible complexity consisted only of the evidence you cite, it wouldn't be controversial at all, because everyone admits that. But the argument that is being made is that there could not possibly be a natural way for the mechanism to evolve. So whereas you think biologists are arguing based on their imagination, they're actually just replying to an argument based on a lack of imagination.

The argument is not, as you state, "I can imagine things so my theory is verified!" It is: "My theory is not falsified by your inability to conceive of a potential evolutionary pathway." Your entire comment is a straw man, as no biologist thinks their imagination is a substitute for empirical evidence - whereas ID proponents like Behe and Dembski think their lack of imagination is a substitute for empirical evidence.

Jason Deitch:  I sympathize with your argument here and have wonder the same thing in the past, but it occurs to me that many of these religious groups in the western world are seeing their numbers dwindle, particularly among the high-value, money-making advanced degree set, precisely because they have no rational, systematic argument to throw against non-theistic arguments.  Being unable to come up with such an argument given the inherently irrational nature of faith, all they have left to do is attack the basis of those scientific advances which so often provide that final small push over the faithless line to an intellectual's internal consideration.

 Beyond this, the very fact that a non-god-centric approach can exist, and faithlessness thrive, is seen by many of them (though they won't come out and say this given the intense insecurity of most faith given that believers rarely take the Kirkegaardian approach you advocate) as a direct challenge to that faith.  Afterall, if god is everywhere and in all things, omnipotent and all-knowing, then how can people honestly believe that god had no hand in something, or for that matter, doesn't exist?  Its the same sort of thinking behind their conviction that all atheists have some petty grudge against the creator, or are just evil individuals attempting to lead others into damnation. 

The screenwriter for Expelled, Kevin 11, has a blog and he has been arguing with people leaving comments there saying he never made any such connection between Darwin and Hitler. In the comments section of his blog, for example, he wrote:

"...no one is arguing that Darwinism is a sufficient condition for Nazism, but it is a necessary one, because Darwinism provided the philosophical and scientific justifications for pre-existing prejudices and hatreds."

It seems to me that new communications technologies, railroads and trucks were necessary conditions to kill millions, but Darwin's theory was not. Without the trains and trucks for the transportation of the victims, Hitler's henchmen could not have gotten them to the camps easily. Without the communications technology, Hitler and his henchmen couldn't have passed their orders across Germany and Europe.

Does anyone really think that all the pogroms and antisemitic violence before Darwin would not have been worse if only they had better technology? The attacks against Jews back during the Crusades, the Pogrom of 1096 in France and Germany? The massacres of Jews at London and York in 1189-1190? In the eleventh century there were Muslim pogroms against Jews in Spain.

I blogged on that aspect here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/04/kevin-eleven-is-lying-sack-of-sa...

Can people like Puddleglum, who has some scattered references to philosophy in their posts, please take an introduction course to critical thinking or something?

"I have been waiting 30 years for one of them to refute CS Lewis'
arguments for the necessity of a supernatural basis for either morality
(Mere Christianity) or reason (Miracles: A Preliminary Study).  Most of
the attempts I've been pointed to have simply failed to grasp the
argument (paucity)."

I have to admit that I, myself, aren't familiar with CS Lewis' argument for a supernatural
basis for morality. Maybe Puddleglum might inform me? Does Lewis avoid
the Euthyphro contrast? What IS his argument?

Or maybe Puddleglum can't help me. His next sentences display an utter failure to grasp central, well-known fallacies in philosophy. 

"... like Prof. Sarkar above, have
lacked to courage to follow the logical necessity of their position;
that, in fact, if "We have evolved [i.e., by purely natural means] a
mind and, with it, culture as well as moral capacities and what we
think of as free will ..." then both reason and morality are simply
accidents of nature."

Logical necessity of their position? This isn't a consequence at all. In fact, your argument here is a sample of a well-known fallacy. It is called the "naturalistic fallacy", and you might want to look it up. 

 "Indeed, it was that "great British evolutionary
biologist J.B.S. Haldane," who said:  "If my mental processes are
determined wholly by the motions of atoms [or neurons] in my brain, I
have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true ... and hence I have
no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." (Possible
Worlds, p. 209, as quoted by Lewis in Miracles)"

Haldane commits another familiar fallacy (in fact several); the failure to distinguish between the origin of a belief and its justification. It simply doesn't matter to whether a belief is justified or not where it came from, or whether it supervenes on a bunch of molecules or whatever. What matters is the evidence for the belief. Scientists come up with hypotheses and ideas in the strangest ways and most peculiar of circumstances. Whether it was dreamt up or caused by drugs is irrelevant to whether the hypothesis is justified or not. That's why we test the hypotheses.

"Then are those few who are brave enough to allow that if
materialistic evolution is true then "morality" and "reason" must be
accidents of nature, and what we mean by them must be an illusion .."

But it doesn't follow! None of the conclusions. "If materialistic evolution is true, then morality and reason must be accidents of nature". No. If materialistic evolution is true, it is an accident of nature that humans developed a capacity for reason and acting morally. But when evaluating whether actions are right or wrong, it doesn't matter how we came to possess the moral thoughts we do. What matters is the content of the action or thought itself. Same with reasoning. Evolution can explain how humans developed a capacity for reasoning soundly. But whether a piece of reasoning is sound or not depends nothing on how the reasoner came by the line of thought in question, but upon the actual content of that line of thought.

Your whole line of thought is, in other words, thoroughly confused 

Several people here have sniffed about Sarkar's assumptions, and then there was a wacky tangent about C.S. Lewis of all people, but so far no one has really addressed what I feel to be one of Sarkar's most pertinent points:

 Hitler directly and specifically compared himself to Koch and Pasteur, saying he wanted to cure humanity of the disease of Jewish bacillus. 

Did medical science "lead to" the Holocaust, in whatever degree you may have already accepted to be true about evolutionary biology?  And if so, do you get your kids vaccinated and treated by doctors? 

Here is the answer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aGEXMyFWyg

First, for those who argue that Charles Darwin somehow caused the hard-hearted competitiveness later labelled "Social Darwinism," its chief exponent, Herbert Spencer, published his views at least as early as 1857, two years before Darwin published On the Origin of Species.

Second, the argument from negative consequences is a fallacy. You can state that some fact leads to unfortunate results but that does not invalidate the fact. If evolution caused people to become cruel, it would still be true. But it doesn't, any more than gravity causes ex-husbands to throw their children off bridges. Love, loyalty, and altruism within one's community evolved as adaptive behaviours.

Third, there are more than two explanations for evolution. Some of them have been discarded along the way, e.g. Lamarkianism. If evolution were disproved, that would not make I.D. true. For one thing, I.D. makes no predictions. Whatever we find is shoe-horned into the "designed" category. Dembski's doctored flagellum images don't make the flagellum into a machine.

Finally, the physical analogue of irreducible complexity is an arch built of bricks or stones. Once you remove the scaffolding that supports it in construction, nothing can be removed without destroying the arch.
Similar changes occur in biochemical systems. In 1918 a geneticist named Muller published the mathematical explanation for the way that evolution creates systems that become irreducibly complex over time, based on his experimental work with fruit flies. You can look it up in the peer-reviewed journal Genetics (Volume 3). Dr. Muller later won the Nobel Prize. Michael Behe denies the existence of the vast academic world of molecular evolution (conferences, university departments, and journals) which has developed over the last forty years, so he probably hasn't read this paper either. An invincible ignorance of science seems to be the real pre-requisite for Intelligent Design believers. And a willingness to throw up their hands and say, "Beats me! Musta been a miracle!"

The current explanation of evolution, the Modern Synthesis, rests much more on the 150 years of work done since Darwin by hundreds of thousands of people pursuing thousands of lines of research in a dozen different fields. Selectively quoting that humble man won't make evolution go away.

Science can not prove the supernatural, because the supernatural can not be counted on to show up for every experiment. If you could force God to show up and perform on command, you'd be controlling him. Since you can't, you can't include him in a scientific experiment. Science neither proves nor disproves religion. But a scientific mind is more likely to notice the lack of current evidence for God. Most scientists care no more for disproving God than they do for disproving Santa Claus: it's not their department and they have other things to do.

"It is true, people have a history of killing each other no matter what they say they believe. Yet, if you research it out to the end I think you'll find that what people believe has a causal impact so if they are being honest when they tell you what they believe then you have a general guide with respect to what they will do."

Does it then follow that people who profess a belief in the divinity Jesus have a tendency to burn witches?  Do faithful Catholics turn a blind eye to the killing of Jews?

Please.

This "general guide" you speak of is so general as to be meaningless.  I am no more declaring myself a Nazi by expressing support for evolution than you are supporting torture of muslims by claiming to be Christian.  Beliefs influence actions, but that influence is not guaranteed to produce results which are stereotypical.

"I'm some will rant against this comment I am posting, and that will just prove my point."

Actually, it won't prove your point. The only way for that to happen is to prove it yourself, which you failed to do.

The "establishment" treats ID with disdain and dismissal because it isn't science (it produces no falsifiable predictions, among other reasons). We do the same (as do you) with many other unsupported pseudo-scientific claims, such as those of new age crystal healers, the scientologist "thetan theory" of disease and personal malfunction, dousing 'experts', psychics, et al. All of these are actually somewhat MORE scientific than ID, since they all make testable claims. ID makes no such claim, and so amounts to saying 'goddidit', in a way most confusing to laypeople like yourself to promulgate a sense of oppression where none exists.

Sometimes, an underdog is legitimately oppressed. But sometimes, the underdog is an underdog because they simply suck at what they do and have unsupported and silly ideas, unworthy of further consideration more than what has already been afforded them. This is where ID stands - rightfully marginalized for its 'breathtaking innanity'.

....the argument that is being made is that there could not possibly
be a natural way for the mechanism to evolve.

Unfortunately Behe's argument was made within a dialectic set up within Darwinism which tends to look at little like this through history:

"Things look to be designed...."

"No, we have to imagine a way for everything to come about naturally if we want to be professional scientists instead of amateur natural theologians."

"Well, I bet you can't imagine how this came about!"

"Now see here, I can imagine a way. And if you want to be a scientist you have to imagine things my way."

And so on, given that the professionalization of science took place around the same time that Darwinian reasoning swept through natural theology it's little wonder that theology is still included in Darwinian arguments or that some simply cite their profession status as if it is the equivalent of fact, logic and evidence. At any rate, it seems to me that it would be best to discard some forms of Darwinian reasoning entirely instead of falling into imagining things one way or another.

The argument is not, as you state, "I can imagine things so my
theory is verified!" It is: "My theory is not falsified by your
inability to conceive of a potential evolutionary pathway."

Given that Darwinian reasoning often includes imaginary forms of "evidence" just as I said it does it tends to remain hypothetical goo that doesn't lend itself to being falsified. You can show how I'm wrong by specifying what the theory of natural selection predicts and what its falsification would look like.

....no biologist thinks their imagination is a
substitute for empirical evidence - whereas ID proponents like Behe and
Dembski think their lack of imagination is a substitute for empirical evidence.

Behe seems to be the only one interested in finding out exactly what natural selection is capable of by trying to find its "edge" based on empirical evidence instead of imaginary events in the past. Given its roots in hypothetical goo it is little wonder that its results are not specified. Note that if Darwinian reasoning and the theory of natural selection were similar to Newtonian reasoning and the theory of gravity then it would be encoded in the language of mathematics and used to predict trajectories of adaptation. A propagandistic association between physics and the theory of gravity and biology and the theory of natural selection is often created by biologists, so what trajectory of adaptation has been predicted and repeatedly verified in a group of organisms? A biology highschool teacher might be likely to be taken in by the charlatanism typical to Darwinists and begin teaching their students that Darwinism is the equivalent of the theory of gravity, after all.

As far as a lack of imagination, mathematicians have long tried to get biologists to stop imagining things which in all probability are impossible, yet most biologists seem to have a mystical attitude when it comes to large numbers which seems to allow them to imagine almost anything. On the one hand they cannot seem to understand the reality of large numbers describing low probability which might even reach a level classified as impossible, yet on the other they tend to hide in the mists of mysticism when it comes to numbers describing long periods of time.

Does it then follow that people who profess a belief in the
divinity Jesus have a tendency to burn witches?  Do faithful Catholics
turn a blind eye to the killing of Jews?

Please.

This "general guide" you speak of is so general as to be meaningless.

 No it isn't.  Obviously a person who says that they believe: "I must kill you." is different from a person who says that they believe: "I must love you as myself."  Of course either could be lying  but their words themselves have meaning and they're often associated with what they actually believe and what they actually believe will generally guide what they do.  

 You seem to be ignorant of the fact that minds work by reasoning.  Take witch burning for example, historical records show that it typically had to do with hysterical women, superstitions and false associations between things like crop failure and women.  Here is an example of the type of reasoning in modern times: HYDERABAD, India (AP) - Indian police arrested 67 women on Wednesday
after a mob killed a barber suspected of practising black magic, an
official said. Dozens more women were being sought by authorities.
    The
arrests came after the mob of about 150 women from the south Indian
village of Muddireddypalli attacked the shop of a barber named
Parvathalu on Tuesday, beating him and locking him inside before
setting the building on fire, said C. Satyanarayana, a district
official.
  The villagers suspected he was practising black
magic and held him responsible for the large number of deaths in the
village in the past year, he said.
  The attack was prompted by the death of another woman earlier this week, the official said.
  The barber was suspected of sorcery because "he was seen throwing lemons here and there," Satyanarayana said.
  He gave no details, but many villagers in this part of India believe lemons are used in black magic.

 This is the sort of story which gives rise to the false associations that you now mention having to do with witches and so on but: ....recent research has shown that far from “stimulating the
persecutions,” the church, whether Catholic or Protestant, often had a
moderating effect. If we recall the social context of prosecutions,
this becomes less surprising than it appears at first sight.
  Witches
did not usually face the bizarre accusations beloved of the orthodox
story. Rather than congress with demons, naked dancing or broomstick
flying, the charges were more likely to concern ordinary village life:
the failure of crops, missing clothes and commonplace jealousies. As a
result, most prosecutions were lay, not religious, initiated not by
“ecclesiastics” concerned with esoteric issues of theology but by women
worried about their families.
(Six Modern Myths About
Christianity & Western Civilization
by Philip J. Sampson :138)

``Given that Darwinian reasoning often includes imaginary forms of "evidence" just as I said it does it tends to remain hypothetical goo that doesn't lend itself to being falsified. You can show how I'm wrong by specifying what the theory of natural selection predicts and what its falsification would look like.''

"Natural selection," the differential reproductive success in a population based on heritable traits, is an observed mechanism of evolution -- a fact. It's so uncontroversial that even most creationists grant it. Behe certainly does. Slightly less universally granted is mutation, but that too is observed (antibiotic resistance developing in a clonal line of non-resistant bacteria.) Perhaps you were looking for a prediction and proposed falsification of common descent?

Eric wrote:

``The argument is not, as you state, "I can imagine things so my theory is verified!" It is: "My theory is not falsified by your inability to conceive of a potential evolutionary pathway." ''

 Well said. I would only strengthen your statement in the specific case of irreducible complexity: "my theory does not fit in your stated limits." Specifically, according to Behe "[a]n irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional." [from Darwin's Black Box p 39.] There are (at least) two limits put by Behe on the production of such systems that are not observed in nature. (1) No component removal from the (i.e. the restriction is that you must only ever add components to a system; yet we have observed the knockout of system components in nature) and (2) no alternative function for the system (when we observe systems having multiple functions in nature.)

It isn't only Behe & company's lack of imagination, but also their ignorance or dismissal of actual observations that don't fit their faulty model of nature that isn't problems for evolution.

As a rhetorical question, how does Ben Stein think having the Nazis believe in Intelligent Design would have softened their desire to see so-called "inferior peoples" dead? Assuming they were motivated by Darwinism, and I doubt they were, but even if so, if they thought we were designed by some supreme being, wouldn't the result that have been that it was even more important to kill off the deviants and steal their stuff?