Who’s Winning?
Paul Nelson at ID the Future posts on the way the scoreboard works in the intelligent design debate. He asks us to envision walking into an arena where a basketball game is taking place and the scoreboard reads, “60-0″ in favor of the home team. However, as you watch the game, you notice that the visiting team is actually outscoring the home team. The explanation given by a bystander is, “Oh, the visitors can’t possibly win so we don’t bother to count their points!”. This seems like a strange way to play basketball, and it is also a strange way to approach the arguments concerning intelligent design. Unfortunately, this is how the game is often played.
NYU philosopher Thomas Nagel summarizes:
By framing an argument that appears to win in every empirical circumstance — design can’t possibly be true, whatever the evidence — Dawkins misunderstands what is at stake in the debate. Evolution by natural selection can’t win simply by epistemological necessity.
Nelson summarizes his post thusly:
Why do people get nervous before basketball games? Because, if the game is played fairly, the winner will be determined on points, not on definitional tricks. And the underdog might win.