Joined: Nov. 2005
I have to admit, I haven't read much of Davidson's stuff before.
It seems bizarre to see his stuff on UD, because a lot of it contradicts the ID position, as well at itself. Just a quick example:
JAD: "I also have never questioned Intelligent Design. Quite the contrary, I always regarded it as self-evident and a mandatory starting point from which to examine the two great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny which are simply two aspects of the same reproductive continuum."
OK, so 'self-evidently' something is involved in doing design.
JAD: "Darwinism is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and every attempt to simulate it has failed."
This is just bizarre. JAD is stating that there is an external identifiable cause behind evolution (and thus 'Darwinism' ) , which is the exact opposite of what evolution states.
If he replaced the word Darwinism with ID I might understand and agree with his argument! My version:
ID is a gigantic illusion based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution has and had an exogenous identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been identified and as far as I know there have been no attempts to simulate it.