Coolness

Did anyone notice the cool Google banner the other day?

In a word...Coolness.

On Intelligent Design : Part II

Now that I've made a brief mention of ID proponents and their attempts to bolster their theory through 'sciency' language, I'll now focus on their arguments against evolution from within the realms of philosophy and sociology. As I mentioned in my last post, ID creationists prefer these areas of debate. They know they're out of their league when it comes to discussing the science, so they feel as though it's more of a level playing field for them when the debate moves outside of the scientific realm.

A favourite approach to attacking evolution is to blame the theory on today's social ills. Evolution, you see, doesn't prescribe morals and tell us how to act ethically, and ID creationists see this as a fundamental flaw in Darwin's theory. How this descredits the science itself is never explained. ID creationists don't make similar charges against Atomic Theory ("Teach people they are composed of atoms and they will behave like atoms") or Plate Tectonics. What anti-evolutionists repeatedly fail to realise is that evolution, like Planck's constant and General Relativity, have nothing to say about morals and ethics because they are scientific explanations about the natural world.

Another favourite is to tie the theory of evolution to the holocaust. The reason for utilising such an argument is pretty clear. If ID creationists can convince just a few people that evolution is responsible for (or at least contibuted to) Hitler's genocidal campaign in World War II then it's a victory for their side. The promotion of ID is a public relations battle, and muddying the waters with these ridiculous assertions works to their advantage.

Appealing to a sense of fair play is another common tactic and takes the form of "Teach the Controversy". ID creationists hope that even if people are skeptical of the scientific merit of ID they'll at least be prepared to tolerate it in school classrooms in the interest of fairness. "Let's just drop it into the science classroom and let the kids decide for themselves" they say. This approach specifically concerns the teaching of ID in schools, which is really one of the ID movements most important objectives. However, that they can expect an idea which is rejected by scientists and doesn't appear in any (serious) scientific publications to be taught alongside a theory of the caliber of evolution defies belief. It's like finding a place for geocentrism in astronomy classes or holocaust denial in history class. I can only think of one way in which ID could receive a (passing) mention in science classes : As an illustration to students of how science is NOT done.

Since ID is all about a public relations campaign, these are the more common arguments against evolutionheard in the public sphere, often supplemented with a "Oh, and by the way, scientists have proven that evolution is not possible anyway" tacked on at the end. Unfortunately, no amount of reasoning will change their minds. There's just too much on the line. As long as evolution remains the basis for biology they feel their God loses a little cred, a situation they will never accept.

This has been a quick overview of ID creationist tactics. Feel free to expand upon these and mention your own favorite ID talking points in the comments section.

On Intelligent Design : Part I

I've been spending a lot of time recently reading about evolution and its latest "challenger", Intelligent Design. On my travels throughout Europe, I've frequently buried my nose in a book called Intelligent Thought : Science Versus The Intelligent Design Movement on those long bus trips around the continent. It's been a good read, and when coupled with loads of excellent material on the internet (particulaly those sites listed under Science on my sidebar), the intellectual and scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design becomes more and more obvious.

In perusing over the writings of ID advocates (see the links under Anti-Science for examples) it is without question that their opposition to evolution stems from nothing other than a discomfort with its contradiction of their religious beliefs (see The Wedge Document). It doesn't match with the Bible, therefore it cannot be true and should be dismissed. They insist it's pure science with no religious motivation. So how do you explain this Mr Dembski? :

[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient...[T]he conceptual soundness of a scientific theory cannot be maintained apart from Christ.

William A. Dembski,

Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology (1999)

ID advocates try to win supporters not through scientific research, but through a series of flawed criticisms of evolution which are nothing more than creationist talking points dressed up in scientific sounding language like irreducible complexity. Indeed, when forced to debate their ideas purely in scientific terms ID advocates suffer an embarrassing defeat, and their misunderstanding of (or even contempt for) science and the way in which it is conducted is put on display for all to see.

For example Michael Behe, while testifying at the Dover trial, conceded that for Intelligent Design to be considered science that the very ground rules for what is constituted as science would have to be changed. After citing the immune system as an "irreducibly complex" biological system and arguing that no literature explaining its evolution had been published (or ever could be published), he was presented with 58 peer-reviewed publications, nine books and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system. He simply explained that this was "not good enough", and that no publication or research would ever convince him that the immune system had evolved via natural processes - a text book example of the Argument from Ignorance.

More often opponents of evolution resort to emotion and attempt to shift the debate away from science and into areas of philosophy and sociology where they feel more comfortable. I'll be speaking about these aspects in my next post on ID.