Never question Darwinism?

O'Leary over at uncommondescent.com blogged on Oct 28th, 2006

Intelligent design requires evidence: Ah, but what can be considered evidence?
by O'Leary on October 28th, 2006 · 32 Comments

(Bullet points have been added to make referring to individual points below easier - Hawks)

...

...

1. If materialism is assumed to be true and Darwinism is the creation story of materialism, then Darwinism is the best available explanation for the history of life.

2. So Darwinism is treated as true.

3. I am NOT saying that that follows logically.

4. Materialism could be true but its orthodox creation story could be untrue at the same time. Some other materialist story could better account for the evidence, for example.

5. However, most people do not think that way. (I am describing a course of mental events here, not a logical argument.)

6. Because Darwinism is treated as true, questioning it is irrational or malign.

7. If you are a scientist, it is no defence to say that you have uncovered evidence against Darwinism. That makes you a heretic.

8. Don’t try claiming that you do science better without Darwinism. If you don’t believe it, you shouldn’t be doing science at all, right?

9. The purpose of science is to uncover the evidence for materialism, and you may as well deny Genesis in a God-fearing chapel as deny Darwinism at the Smithsonian.

...

...

One has to wonder what went on in O'Leary mind as she wrote her comments above. She builds and attacks this strawman where Darwinism is the only possible acceptable materialistic theory for the diversity of life we have today. O'Leary, it is neither irrational nor malign to question ANY scientific theory. It's simply good science. The only people who think otherwise are people uneducated in science + the some creationists (O'Leary being one of them). The only good thing she says is in #3 and #5 where she claims that the supposed materialistic arguments are not logical - they're not. Neither is O'Leary argument and the only illogical mental events she exposes are those of her own. Heck, she even makes a strawman out of ID by claiming later in her post: "It will be useless for making any general point against the materialist paradigm. ID-friendly evidence will merely be shelved as a problem to be solved or reinterpreted along materialist lines, no matter how flimsy.". O'Leary, ID makes it very clear that it does not say anything about the nature of the designer, so by claiming that since science only deals with materialism, ID-friendly evidence will automatically be rejected is simply bogus.