Derbyshire and ID redux — just a quick followup to this earlier post on John Derbyshire’s frustrations with ID arguments and arguers. Presumably this will be his final word on the subject via the Corner blog, and it’s a pretty darned thorough response to a series of core points always being advanced. Share it for reference should you ever get into an argument on the subject.

And, as always, I like his snarkiness on this point, as these opening remarks indicate:

First, a general remark. I like a good knock-down argument as much as the next person, but I must say, ID-ers are low-grade opponents, at least if a bulk of my e-mails are any indication. They are still banging away with the arguments I first heard when the whole thing first surfaced 10-15 yrs ago. “What use is half an eye?” “The odds against this are a trillion to one!” etc. etc. There is nothing new here. I understand why biologists get angry and frustrated with ID-ers. All the ID arguments have been patiently refuted many times over. The ID-ers response is to come back with… the same arguments.