> They will eventually discover that they’re wrong, and we will have yet further examples of evolution’s devious paths. In my terminology, their dogged search for skyhooks will uncover heretofore unimagined cranes. And precisely because their conclusions will be the opposite of what they hoped to discover, we will take them seriously.
An important part of being able to truly ask oneself if they are wrong is the humility to seriously consider an alternative. The author's treating of ID research as a foregone conclusion, even with his acknowledgment that we could be wrong in the next paragraph, seems rather ironic. Isn't it this kind of hubris that he is precisely calling out?
No it isn't. Because there is precisely no evidence for, or coherent argue in favour of, ID. If you imagine ID is an alternative to evolution then that is to misunderstand the concept of evolution which is, at least in its fundamental form, inherently true. It's mathematically true. It has demonstrably happened and is demonstrably happening. ID is purely conjecture that is only contradicted by evidence.
I do think Dennett is being rather sneering in his inclusion of ID in the essay at all. But he's not wrong that good work can be funded, and genuinely useful, and appreciated without malice, for misguided reasons.
I think he’s simultaneously acknowledging the wild unlikelihood of creationism, while also poking a little fun at himself with the irony of “of course I’m not wrong about this.”
"An important part of being able to truly ask oneself if they are wrong is the humility to seriously consider an alternative."
Which he did, at length.
"The author's treating of ID research as a foregone conclusion"
No, it's a consequence of massive amounts of evidence, not just of evolution, but of the character of the sort of people who work at the Discovery Institute.
An important part of being able to truly ask oneself if they are wrong is the humility to seriously consider an alternative. The author's treating of ID research as a foregone conclusion, even with his acknowledgment that we could be wrong in the next paragraph, seems rather ironic. Isn't it this kind of hubris that he is precisely calling out?