Via Richard Bennett, this excellent essay on what ‘Intelligent Design’ really is:
Their premise seems to be that as long as they don’t explicitly name the “designer”–as long as they allow that the “designer” could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study–that this somehow saves their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character.
But does it?
Imagine we discovered an alien on Mars with a penchant for bio-engineering. Could such a natural being fulfill the requirements of an “intelligent designer”?
It could not. Such a being would not actually account for the complexity that “design” proponents seek to explain. Any natural being capable of “designing” the complex features of earthly life would, on their premises, require its own “designer.” If “design” can be inferred merely from observed complexity, then our purported Martian “designer” would be just another complex being in nature that supposedly cannot be explained without positing another “designer.” One does not explain complexity by dreaming up a new complexity as its cause.
By the very nature of its approach, “intelligent design” cannot be satisfied with a “designer” who is part of the natural world. Such a “designer” would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such. The only “designer” that would stop their quest for a “design” explanation of complexity is a “designer” about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study–a “designer” that “transcends” nature and its laws–a “designer” not susceptible of rational explanation–in short: a supernatural “designer.”
I find it a grave insult to the English language that something as stupid as ID should incorporate the word ‘intelligent’ in its title.
wild bird
Well it sure dont look like intellegent design in our schools that stuff this evolution nonsense into the heads of the students and theres sure no intellegence in the head of the judge who ordered the EVOLUTION IS A THEORY removed from the school text books and evolution is still a unproven theory based on junk science and a few fossels
John Cole
Apparently, you also found grammar and syntax to be worthless theories.
Haffasthero
wild bird might be well read. His punctuation is from the school of ee cummings, although his run on sentence seems to show he got a “c.”
simon
Honestly John? I don”t appreciate your baseless attacks on wild bird”s grammar and syntax; Haven”t you heard about the (debate) raging in English grad study programs all across the country on whether current ideas of grammar and punctuation are even valid! Well: you will? I”m starting it tomorrow? =ok ok I”ll give you that grammar is a fact: but punctuation IS ONLY A THEORY++
Brad R.
John, don’t knock wild bird’s syntax- he’s been studying at the Kaye Grogan School for the Avant Garde ;-)
Kathy K
I’ve never understood why people making comments don’t at least make an effort to sound intelligent. You can download several popup spell checkers free from the net.
Grammar checkers are more difficult to find but even if you just try to put commas and periods in where you’d pause if talking, it helps.
Then again, maybe wild bird talks like that too…
Thomas Jackson
So I guess this explains the rage to teach unintelligent design.
Dave Ruddell
I would think a guy who wrote the following:
“I find it a grave insult tohe English language…”
might be a bit more careful with his criticisms of the ability of others with basic language skills.
John Cole
Yes- because typing ability is the same thing as language skills. Clearly my typo and Wildbird’s rambling incoherence are the same thing.
Jeebus.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe evolutionary theory is based on junk science and a few ‘fossels?’
Dave Munger
Tell you what, mm-hmm. It’s true, some of the standard rules of punctuation are plainly incorrect, like when you put a quotation at the end of a sentence, you’re supposed to put the period *before* the final quotation mark. WTF? How can the sentence be over until after the quote is over? The sentence *contains* the quote!
Anyway, do all Intelligent Design advocates argue that design can be infered from mere complexity? Where does ID overlap, if at all, with those who hold that life is the natural outcome given the physical constants we’ve got, and that those physical constants may have to have been designed for them to work out so nicely (given a couple of significant assumptions)? Man, I think I worded that ALL wrong.
me
That’s like saying the Big Bang theory is wrong because it doesn’t tell what came before the Bang.
Only, there was no “before the Bang”, because the bang created space-TIME.
CaseyL
H’mmm, let’s see. Auto-immune diseases, spinal chords that can’t recover from injuries, reproductive equipment right next to the excretory ducts, nipples on men, extraneous hair on women, knee joints that go out of whack on a regular basis, nerve wiring that results in pain occurring in the wrong part of the body, and – above all! – an appendix that has no apparent purpose except to become infected and require surgical removal.
*That’s* intelligent design??
willyb
Just out of curiosity, do you believe evolutionary theory is based on junk science and a few ‘fossels?’
The answer may be yes, depending upon how you define junk science and “few.” How has the theory of evolution advanced science? Why is this subject taught at all?
simon
How has the theory of evolution advanced science? Why is this subject taught at all?
What?!? You really couldn’t make this stuff up. willyb, do you really want the answer to that question? Methinks not. And that is the problem with ID in general. You simply want a non-thinking, untestable, unscientific explanation about magical designers (is it ok if there’s more than one?) to make you feel a little more secure about your narrow, rigid worldview. Meanwhile, the rest of us want to move forward.
willyb
simon
You might want to reread my post. I have no intention of defending ID, or even suggesting that it replace evolution. My question(s) relate to the “scientific” value of evolution.
Could you please explain how the theory of evolution is used to add value to us earthly beings. What great scientific advances are premised on this great and powerful theory called evolution?? What would we lose if the theory of evolution were not taught?
Kimmitt
What great scientific advances are premised on this great and powerful theory called evolution??
Most modern medicines are based on chemical pathways which are only comprehensible through an understanding of evolution. The discovery of DNA lead to our understanding of, among many other things, how viruses function, which has obvious and massive utility. Genetic diseases, their markers, and treatment for them all require understanding of alleles and their drift — and studies of genetic drift have given us major insights into how human beings travelled across the globe over prehistory.
We are currently in the process of rewriting taxonomy (classification of organisms) based around evolutionary principles; before, we were stuck with some rather unscientific value judgements as to how to classify organisms. Evolutionary theory is inherent to selective breeding programs, which used to be done on a much more trial-and-error sort of basis.
I’m not in the field, and those are the results I came up with off the top of my head. Evolutionary theory also posits an origin of humanity which does not rely on a creation mythos, which is helpful for those of us who don’t have access to one. Evolutionary psychology, when it isn’t being badly misused, gives us tremendous insights into the universal concepts and abilities which are inherent to the human brain — and the differences between them. Even computer programs use evolutionary theory to make decisions using “fuzzy logic” criteria that companies like Guiness use to handle complicated logistical tasks. Evolution is one of the fundamental theories which allows us to comprehend and manipulate the universe.
me
Kimmitt – none of these things require Evolution theory to understand or explain, it is merely a convenient backdrop.
Evolution IS a creation myth. It is the creation myth of the religion of secular humanism.
Brad R.
Evolution IS a creation myth. It is the creation myth of the religion of secular humanism.
LOL, that is truly, truly one of the most fucktardular things I’ve ever heard.
Brad R.
Kimmitt – none of these things require Evolution theory to understand or explain, it is merely a convenient backdrop.
I.e., “I don’t want to actually read anything Kimmitt wrote, it’s more fun to accuse him of being a secular fundamentalist.”
Aaron
I find myself allowing misspellings (sp?) and grammar errors into commments because they seem more conversational.
I’m more careful with real correspondence.
The Disembodied Voice
Whenever someone claims that evolution lacks evidence it is always fun to point them in the direction of the nearest peer-reviewed scientific journal and see if they can do the same thing for creationism (and ID is essentially creationism going incognito about as effectively as Inspector Clouseau).
monkey's uncle
How ironic that intelligence is not in any way involved in the actual arguments for intelligent design. A more apt term would be ‘Moronic Creationism’, but then that wouldn’t pass the doublespeak requirement.
willyb
Kimmitt:
Sorry, I’m not buying the necessary connections you are advancing. I just have a difficult time believing that all of these “scientific” advances are premised on the notion that we evolved.
I am willing to concede that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory under the current definition of such things. However, the fact that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory because it is falsifiable, does not mean that it is not a false scientific theory. I say dump both theories (evolution and intelligent design) and move on to teaching something that the average public school student can actually use to survive and prosper in this country.
CaseyL
Willyb’s right. Let’s eliminate all school curriculum that doesn’t result in an immediate and obvious payoff.
English Lit, geology, World History, the Classics, algebra, music, art, and phys ed top the list. Eh, who needs ’em?
That leaves much more room for really important classes, like…um…
Gosh, when you get right down to it? People really don’t need more than an 8th grade education to “survive and prosper in this country.” Once they sort of know how to read, and sort of know some math… they can go straight to voc-tech and learn network administration or car repair.
Kimmitt
I just have a difficult time believing that all of these “scientific” advances are premised on the notion that we evolved.
I am extremely comfortable with you holding the religious belief that human beings, unlike all other organisms on earth, did not come about through evolutionary processes. Don’t try to treat it as anything other than a religious belief and we’ll get along just fine.
simon
Thanks Kimmit, I was out for a little while. willyb, why are you so intent on proving your own ignorance? We could point you to 100 of the most renowned molecular biologists, chemist, physicists, etc., etc., etc. who would explain to you in simple or complicated terms exactly what Kimmit just said, and your ever so non-thinking answer will be, “Nope! I’m not buyin’ it!” The only real myth related to evolution is the myth that it somehow is an affront to your creation beliefs.
My great uncle was a molecular biologist with multiple PhDs and a very strong Christian, but he also strongly believed in evolution. He just thought it, like everything else in the natural world, was part of God’s plan.
Get this through your thick skull. Science has no desire to get rid of religion; it really doesn’t pay attention to it. For some reason though, certain religious people are intent on disproving science. If that is the fight you want, you will lose, as science’s very nature is to prove or disprove. Religion’s nature, however, is the exact opposite – proof no, faith yes! In fact the more faith you have in something you cannot prove, the more holy you are seen.
This is a classic case of a false persecution complex. If you’re paranoid enough, your actions will spur action from the other side, a.k.a., a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s sad that you are part of your own problem and don’t even know it. Wake up!
Brad R.
I say dump both theories (evolution and intelligent design) and move on to teaching something that the average public school student can actually use to survive and prosper in this country.
Right, so even though evolution is a huge part of all those scientific developments Kimmitt listed, it won’t help people “survive and prosper.”
Christ, let’s just go back to putting leaches on people and call it a day.
simon
dump both theories…
Please learn your definitions!!! Evolution is both a theory and a fact. ID, on the other hand, is at its strongest a hypothesis, but more accurately, only an inference.
Study up, willyb! You need vocabulary to get you through life.
me
None of you even have any idea what you are talking about. The evidence for macroevolution is so thin as to be nonexistant.
So would a person who disbelieved the teachings of Rome in the 15th century have been mocked and scorned by the parroting class of the day. Human nature never changes.
Those of us who advocate a strict adherence to scientific standards and rigorous proof will advance the cause of true rationality nevertheless. I have no love or need for either of your hokey religions.
Kimmitt
The evidence for macroevolution is so thin as to be nonexistant.
There are no Precambrian rabbits. QED.
Slartibartfast
It’s just a gap in the fossil record, Kimmitt. A wee, tiny gap.
Yes, me, I’d agree that evolution is the most godawful (no pun intended) theory ever devised…except for every other theory that’s been put up to explain things. Come up with something better; it’s what science is all about.
If your complaint is that macroevolution is a worthless concept simply because no one’s ever witnessed it, we can also do away with the Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram, because after all, no one’s actually seen any stars progress through the main sequence.
willyb
“I am extremely comfortable with you holding the religious belief that human beings, unlike all other organisms on earth, did not come about through evolutionary processes. Don’t try to treat it as anything other than a religious belief and we’ll get along just fine.”
I don’t know why I waste my time with you dim wits, you can’t even comprehend simple english.
I have offered no support for ID, yet the all-knowing Kimmitt has devined that that is the explanation for my lack of enthusiasm for evolution. You are a pompous asshole, Kimmitt. But know that you are in good company. There was a time when the “scientific” community was in almost universally agreement that the earth was flat.
Orac
Oooh, looks like WillyB is pulling the Galileo gambit. How sad.
willyb
Orac
What’s sad is your weak retort. Kind of what you would expect from someone in the fourth grade??
AWJ
>There was a time when the “scientific” community was in almost universally [sic] agreement that the earth was flat.
No, there wasn’t, actually.
The idea that the Earth was believed flat in the Middle Ages (and its corrolary, the idea that the Inquisition persecuted anyone who spoke up in favor of its roundness) is a myth invented in the 19th century by anti-Catholic bigots seeking to smear the Church of Rome. No, really.
The educated classes of the Western world (and most anyone whose occupation involved long-distance travel, whether they had formal education or not) have known that the Earth is a sphere since classical Greek times. One of the Greek mathematicians actually used triangulation to calculate its circumference to a rather impressive degree of precision.
willyb
AWJ
Thanks for pointing out my typo… does it make you feel superior?
Note that I did not reference the Middle Ages in my comment about the flat earthers.
AWJ
willyb, your backpedaling is pathetic and laughable. There is no way you are going to persuade me that in your last post you were really talking about the Bronze Age.
Here’s a summary of all of willyb’s contributions to this thread so far:
willyb: (says something stupid)
other_poster: You’re full of shit. (explains why willyb is full of shit)
willyb: How dare you suggest that I ever said or even implied (what he just said), you arrogant know-it-all liberal intellectual who hates America.
Kimmitt
I have offered no support for ID,
And I didn’t say you did. You indicated discomfort with evolutionary theory as applied to the Descent of Man but not with other aspects of evolutionary theory, and I was working on that basis.
Dave Ruddell
John, from upthread I was calling you on a typo and you said:
Just out of curiosity, do you believe evolutionary theory is based on junk science and a few ‘fossels?’
Just so you know, I most assuredly am a supporter of evolutionary theory (PhD in materials science; I know what the scientific method is). I was just taking the piss out of you man.
me
There is simply no there there. Slartibartfast has hit the nail on the head. People believe in Evolution because there is no other theory competing with it on the same plane. But, that is no basis of proof, or of any reason to take an unyielding stand one way or another on such a minor detail of little immediate practical value.
The playwright Noel Coward was fond of saying, to those who pointed out that he had reversed his opinion on some matter, “When I find that I am wrong, I change my mind… what do you do?”
I would paraphrase that to read, “When I find that I do not know, I say, I do not know… what do you do?” I do not know how life emerged, uniquely and blisteringly fast on this lonely planet, from a bunch of inert chemicals that had such an extraordinary capability to cling together and form complex systems to carry out the processes of life. I do not know how “simple” organisms made the leap to unfathomable complexity of higher organisms. I do not know why we are here or what, if any, purpose it serves. Fortunately, I have more immediate concerns to fill these brief moments in space and time which I have been granted. (Or, not?)
Human beings are so pitifully afraid of the unknown that they must grasp at comforting myths, even when they know in their hearts that they have little or no basis in fact. How sad. Or maybe not. What do I know, he said with a shrug.
I will say this, though. As much as I abhor religion, the ID’ers have stirred the pot by bringing up legitimate concerns about orthodox Evolution that have not been addressed scientifically, but by sneers and, at best, hand-waving speculation with little scientific backing. I believe they are performing a service to science.
Their arguments have become monumentally more sophisticated over the last 20 years or so. Eventually, I expect they will gain enough scientific authenticity that they will spark a crisis in thought. And, as we all know, it is when the scientific community is in crisis that quantum leaps in logic are made. And, our understanding of and appreciation for the miracle of life will “evolve” to the next higher level.
So, play your parts, browbeat the upstarts, launch the inquisition, feed the Christians to the lions. It is all part of the natural process that has been going on since the beginning of rational thought. Forget you ever read this and, fulfill the function for which you may or may not have been designed. On the one hand, it is a play fascinating to watch unfold. On the other, I can’t help but feel I have seen it all before. Sayonara.
Kimmitt
But, that is no basis of proof, or of any reason to take an unyielding stand one way or another on such a minor detail of little immediate practical value.
Evolutionary theory makes specific, testable predictions which are invariably bourne out. It’s as right as we’re going to get, at least for now.
bago
Has nobody pointed out the take all pisser on intelligent design?
Namely the eyeball critique takedown by Den Beste.
The takedown is at http://denbeste.nu/essays/humaneye.shtml
Slartibartfast
What people believe in is not relevant; what’s scientifically defensible is. I’d actually rather have a teeming mob of skeptics than one believer.
And no, skepticism doesn’t imply that a theory must be false until every last corner of that theory is fastened down. Are Newton’s laws of motion untrue because they don’t account for general relativity? I say no, they simply weren’t general enough.
Slartibartfast
Oh, and neither does skepticism mean that one has to adopt no-theory in place of theories that haven’t been conclusively proven. No-theory doesn’t predict anything, and cannot be tested. Imagine particle physics: no experiments would ever take place, because all is either completely known, in which case experimentation would be redundant, or sufficiently unproven as to be assigned no theory. In the latter case, we pretend we don’t know anything at all, nor do we suspect or postulate anything, and so we have no basis on which to perform an experiment. Other than a series of disconnected let’s-do-this-and-see-what-happens.
willyb
“willyb, your backpedaling is pathetic and laughable. There is no way you are going to persuade me that in your last post you were really talking about the Bronze Age.”
The point of my comment about the flat earthers was to highlight what is obvious to most evolved apes, that is, generally accepted beliefs (aka, “scientific” theories) are occasionally found to be wrong. I had no intention of undertaking a history lesson. Do you always try to shoot the messenger when you dislike the message?
Slartibartfast
Well, the first prediction I’m aware of was Darwin’s: the Hawk Moth. Doesn’t have much to do with the Ascent of Man, specifically, but it does have relevance to the theory of evolution.
Slartibartfast
Oh, and a cursory Googling turned up this. When you’re done with that, I highly recommend that you go over here and read it. Read it all; there’s a few days’ worth.
willyb
Startibartfast
Thanks for the links. A cursory look at the first two leaves me where I started it. Predicting the existence of a moth with a long tongue is great. How many times was Darwin wrong? The second link confirms what I have said…
“Evolution is more sensitive to initial conditions and extraneous factors, so specific predictions about what mutations will occur and what traits will survive are impractical.”
Evolutionary theory covers the watewrfront, and I have no beef with much of what it concludes. Are there some links that address my point, i.e., predictions directly related to man’s evolution from prehistoric slime?
Kimmitt
predictions directly related to man’s evolution from prehistoric slime?
Which part of the chain do you find uncompelling? Also, does this apply to, say, cats, or just to people? I really am trying to understand your position, and I really am not trying to characterize you as believing in Intelligent Design.
Essentially, we have established on countless other species fairly impressively unbroken lines of descent from other, similar species. From this, we infer that the broken but still evocative line of descent which we have found for species homo sapiens can be described using the same tools, though we don’t have enough fossils yet to fill out the entire story.
Eddie
“And that is the problem with ID in general. You simply want a non-thinking, untestable, unscientific explanation about magical designers (is it ok if there’s more than one?) to make you feel a little more secure about your narrow, rigid worldview. Meanwhile, the rest of us want to move forward.”
Simon. I applaud you for your honesty and frustration in posting this comment. If you wander in any blog forum or coffee shop and bring up the topic of ID and evolution, you’ll find similar almost carbon copy-like attitudes of evolutionists towards ID.
In my defense, I’d like to lead you to an article that is intended to be introspectively thought provoking. Apparently, some who believe in ID are “intelligent.” I think if Billy Graham were to become an atheist, it would provoke some thought in me. How about you?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=315976
Kimmitt
Again, Project Steve.
Slartibartfast
Shorter Flew: things are too complicated to have gotten that way by themselves. Honest, that’s pretty much what he’s saying.
I’m wondering exactly how complex things might have gotten without God’s hand in the mix. Anyone?
What you’ve done, Eddie, is link to an article about a truly unfalsifiable and untestable theory. How does one test for God?
Kimmitt
You start with a control universe, where God does not exist, and see if things go differently, of course.
Slartibartfast
I meant with the materials at hand, of course. But that was good for a bit more than a chuckle, Kimmitt.
Unless you were serious, and have such a control universe on your person…in which case I take it all back.
Kimmitt
Oh, I do have a control universe, and in it my blog is as heavily trafficked as Mr. Cole’s. Which is proof of something, I think.
Eric Pobirs
Science is a methodology to find explanations for natural phenomena. ID is not an explanation, it is an alibi. It may get the cops off your back but it still doesn’t explain the corpse in your car’s trunk.
ID is the life origins equivalent of, “It’s turtles all the way down!”
tzs
Intelligent Design is like saying because someone in a poker game gets a royal flush it proves the existence of the Poker Fairy.