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.