willful blindness

William Dembski revises history:

But this much is clear. There have already been two immensely important changes that have been more or less coterminous with the recent media frenzy. The first is that criticism of Darwin’s theory has now been internalized by the biological community itself.

"Has now been internalized." "Now." Give us all a collective break. Darwin's theory has been "on trial" from its inception, and its critics within mainstream science have been vocal and, more to the point, feverishly researching and publishing. Where was Dembski when the "punctuated equilibria" controversy first broke? When Lynn Margulis first speculated that mitochondria were once free organisms?

Then Dembski pulls a common creationist card, "my enemy's enemy is my friend:"

To be sure, it is never ever called criticism, but that is what it is nonetheless. Look at Harold Morowitz’ stuff on the origins of life. His papers always contain a purely ritualistic word about Darwin’s great insight. And then Darwin is dismissed. Too random, too unscientific. These are both Morowitz’s terms.

What he wants is a “universal and deterministic” theory of biological origins and development, one based on biochemistry. Not traditional biochemistry, of course, but biochemistry in which “organic laws” are finally revealed. These laws Morowitz argues cannot be reduced to organic chemisty, just as inorganic chemistry cannot be reduced to physics in view of the Pauli exclusion principle. What a remarkable series of claims to find within the very heart of the establishment.

It's only "remarkable" if you are willfully blind to the existing controversies at the "very heart of the establishment." Dembski doesn't mention that Morowitz looks down upon both God-of-the-gaps and randomness-of-the-gaps explanations for the origin of life. His "deterministic" account of biogenesis is completely designer-free; its fundamental claim is that life is an expected and common feature in the universe.

As Morowitz (along with Robert Hazen and James Trefil) writes,

Although both the theories of frozen accident and deterministic origins have their supporters, virtually all scientists who work in the field believe that once living things appeared on our planet, the Darwinian process of natural selection guided their development. There is no disagreement on that point, although there is -- and should be -- vigorous debate on the details of the way natural selection has worked.

Dembski conveniently ignores Morowitz's unequivocal opinion of Intelligent Design: it's "bad science."

When the facts don't fit, you must call bullshit.