Stones Cry Out

For starters, the affirmation of design is good for science.

Here's where the article goes off the rails. There is nothing about "the affirmation of design"— what does that phrase even mean?— that is good for science.

The human mind inherently seeks intelligible order.

A baseless assertion.

Thus the conviction that such an order exists to be found is a crucial assumption.

A conclusion that does not follow from the stated premise, i.e. the baseless assertion.

No scientists are going to find their work diminished because they ground it in the search for an inbuilt design in nature.

At this point, I gave up on the article. This statement is exactly wrong. The methods of science cannot be used in the search for "an inbuilt design" in nature. Making this statement demonstrates an appalling failure to understand science for what it is and isn't.

The rest of the article is not worth reading once you unpack the second paragraph.

It is really arrogant of evangelical nonscientists to explain science to the public, especially considering that the vast majority appear to know little to nothing about science, particularly evolution.

Regarding the article and ID, here are my two cents:

"No scientists are going to find their work diminished because they ground it in the search for an inbuilt design in nature.“

This statement is just not true. Science seeks to address questions of causality. Design requires one to believe that causality ultimately derives from a divine designer. One system is based on evidence and testability; the other is not. Equating the two in science class always yields the following conclusion when a student or a researcher cannot quickly deduce the answer to a difficult question: "God meant for it to be that way." That is intellectually dishonest, and it can lead to dangerous situations, such as the clinician who cannot quickly identify a life-threatening tumor as the source of a patient's medical distress.

“…modern science could have arisen only in a culture convinced that the universe is the creation of a rational mind…”

This last statement is asserted without a shred of evidence to back it up. Science requires religion? As a scientist myself, I am quite sure it does not.

"As arch-Darwinian Richard Dawkins said in a recent Salon interview, evolution produces 'the illusion of design.' The implication for science... is that truth is not 'out there' to be discovered but is merely a social construction."

This last sentence could apply just as easily to strict biblical interpretation. It should offend evangelicals just as much as rationalists who respect science. Truth is relative? Sounds liberal! It also does not follow from Dawkins' statement. Instead, in a leap of sophistry the writer of the article links Dawkins to the notion of subjective truth to make it seem that no true understanding of anything can be achieved by science. According to this semantic sleight of hand, science is a mere belief system equivalent, if not subordinate, to religion.

Unfortunately, reality is different. Evidence supporting evolution is so widespread in biological research that as a scientist, one need not study it per se to be convinced of its strengths. Too bad nonscientists don't know much about evolution. Good for the ID folks though, who "believe" their idea is better. If that is indeed the case, then perhaps one of the proponents of ID could explain its strengths, rather than carp on evolution.

I'll go one step further. One of the biggest criticisms of ID is that it is not science so it should not be taught in science class. If you or any other ID proponent disagrees with this assertion, perhaps you could articulate a response here. To my knowledge none has ever been written. To me, this confirms the suspicions of people who accuse ID proponents of waging a duplicitous campaign to establish government endorsement of religious teaching in public schools. Why else do ID proponents denigrate evolution as a mere "theory" when the same label applies to every other well-established idea in science such as gravity or cancer, for which there is incomplete understanding? If you disagree, then please just explain what basis ID has in science class. What predictive power does it have? How is it testable?

As a follow up, and as an attempt to hold myself to the same standard I am asking of you, I offer the following regarding evolution. The degrees to which harmful genetic mutations are represented in the human and chimpanzee genomes are more similar than in comparisons between human and non-primate mammalian genomes.

That finding is perfectly compatible with, and even predicted by, evolution, which says that humans and chimps had a common ancestor and thus have similar genetic composition. However, it seems hard to reconcile that finding with ID: Why would an intelligent designer create harmful genetic mutations, and why would He do so to similar degrees in humans and chimps but not in other mammals?