A key reason I got involved in the intelligent design debates is that I was unhappy with some of the standard criticisms of ID given in the literature. Of course there are lots of bad arguments for ID out there — there are bad arguments given for every position. But it’s unfair to focus on the bad arguments, when there are better arguments that are given — or even when there are better arguments that could be given (even though they currently aren’t being given by the ID proponents). 

Similarly, it’s unfair to saddle ID proponents with their history. Just because they espoused religious views in the past in conjunction with ID, or treated ID as a lot like creationism, that doesn’t follow that the doctrine of ID has to be understood religiously, or like creationism, now. It’s perfectly legitimate for one to make changes to the doctrine one is espousing, and it’s unfair for critics to simply focus on the past bad doctrines proponents used to espouse, when there are more plausible doctrines being espoused now. 
Advertisements