Someone called rbullock posted a classic piece or poor reasoning at The ID Report. It's entitled Darwinists on Design: Jumping to Confusions. Get a load of this and guess where it’s going (no prizes):
What if you were lied to all your life that a square was a circle? Oh yes, you were told, it's natural to have contrary thoughts, but you must not be deceived by appearances; those things that look like squares are not. They are merely apparent squares. And in reality, you are politely informed, they not only are circles, they must be, because an all encompassing Theory of Circumfusion requires them to be, and you must believe the Theory of Circumfusion. And what if you did? Despite all that was in you; despite what you instinctively and empirically knew, what if you believed? What if?
Imagine that you really bought the lie. You began to see reality not as circles and squares, but as circles and the illusion of squares. And suppose over time you trained yourself, through constant reminder that what you see as squares are not squares, but circles; you actually saw only circles.
Well, that would be pretty silly. We have a very clear definition of a square: “a regular polygon with four equal sides and four equal angles (90 degree angles, or right angles)”. Anyone claiming a square was a circle could easily be shown to be wrong. More importantly, a group of independent observers could all pick out the squares from a series of squares and circles, with 100% accuracy, using the standard square definition. But rbullock doesn’t care about this. You know where he’s going:
The problem for Darwinists lies with the term "design". The term best describes everything we see in nature, but, insist Darwinists, it simply cannot be; The Theory will not allow it. Never mind what your eyes see, never mind what your hands touch, never mind what your ears hear, you must, as atheist co-discoverer of DNA Francis Crick insists biologist do, constantly remind yourself that what you see was not designed but evolved.
He is saying living organisms are the (designed) squares that Darwinists are insisting are circles (not designed). Yes, it’s an argument by analogy. Except it doesn’t work because IDists have never been able to define how to tell if something is designed (the way a square is defined), other than “it looks designed”. What they really mean is “it’s complex”. But we know complex organisms can evolve.
He does have a point though. Well, almost. I cringe when people (and I think I’ve heard even Dawkins do this) refer to “design” in nature. “Design” in my view has to have an element of intent – some conceptualization of the thing before it is built. Evolution is very clearly how something comes into being without pre-planning. By an accidental mutation that is then (ie after it exists) selected for. Apparently someone else agrees with me, although rbullock misses the point:
The latest gift of Darwinian absurdity came in the pages of the gloriously serious-sounding Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research where Columbia University's W.J. Bock surrendered to an Orwellian coward's solution: simply eliminate the troublesome "D" word altogether. Rather than have biologists distracted repeating the mantra, "it is not designed, it is not designed, it is not designed," Bock's solution is to remove even the "concept of design" from all "biological explanations". Design is "inappropriate" in biology, according to Bock, and "should not be used in evolutionary theory."
I agree with Bock’s suggestion because it is correct. "Orwellian" is misinformation or the denial of truth – in fact, exactly what rbullock is doing. Eliminating the “D word” actually makes the description more accurate.
Biology can continue to operate (as it does, truth be told) in terms of design, and because there is no English word for "apparently-designed-yet-actually-unintelligently-caused" with respect to observed objects
Yes there is. The word is “evolved”.
Adesignists, including Darwinists who believe in God and theistic evolutionists (there is no practical difference) risk embarrassing themselves talking about God for one reason: to keep the confusion alive regarding the Darwin-busting fact of design in nature. Confusion is the ally of a wrong worldview, and those who deny design in biology, particularly for fear of the "connotations" of a designer, must rely on silly thoughts about God and dice as they spin their worldview in a whirlwind of illogic and ever-growing deception.
No, evolutionists talk about god because they know the IDist’s true motivation is to teach their religious myths as though they were science. And talking about design that is not there helps them in their dishonest endeavor. We should stop talking about design in nature. Evolution is how life got built. There is no evidence that there was any forward planning or conceptualization in advance (design) at all.