Casey Luskin (in Christopher Hitchens and His Cave Myths post) discusses some of Christopher Hitchens views. One of Luskin’s points really made me laugh:
In his debate against Jay Wesley Richards, Hitchens reportedly argued against God by alleging that God would not create certain features we observe, to which Richards aptly replied, “A sneer is not an argument.”
Are you kidding me? Did Jay Wesley Richards really just claim that you cannot use as an argument what God would have or have not done? This is laughable in light of the whole ID movement being based on what we would predict God would do. Hitchens’ comments were indeed a sneer, but more importantly they use the exact same reasoning that intelligent design proponents use. However, IDers conveniently ignore the myriad examples of unintelligent design.
Luskin counters that:
ID proponents regularly point out that evolution is quite good at effecting loss-of-function. While random mutations usually fail miserably at creating new complex biological functions, they are in fact quite good at messing up complex biological functions.
No matter how any ID proponent spins these facts, these “loss-of-function” changes are a prediction of evolutionary theory. They are just moving the goal posts to say that some things do happen by evolution, but other things were done by a designer, whenever convenient for their argument. Of course, we have seen that evolution has occurred in a lab with the E. coli experiments done by Dr. Lenski’s group. Here, the bacteria clearly gained the ability to use citric acid as a food source. This highly controlled experiments shows that gain of function does happen, contrary to Luskin’s belief.