The Left’s Intelligent Design Problem by Max Borders

Tech Central Station ^ | 04 Jan 2006 | Max Borders

[Reactionary]

"The free market operates "as if guided by an invisible hand" because buying and selling simply is the state of "economic nature," as designed by God and imprinted in human nature."

It seems to me that the state of "economic nature" that you're talking about is really a primitive state of civilization, not the state of nature that the Enlightenment philosophes and the Founders drew their inspiration from. The state of nature is itself a state of fear; the foundation for civilization is the recognition that men must band together and specialize in order to avoid violent death.

[muir_redwoods]

I'm not sure it's fair to confabulate economists with biologists but if it is, Adam Smith is clearly a Darwinist whose very writings suggest a natural selection at work in an economic sphere.

The Left proposes an Intelligent Designer be put to work regulating the economy.

As I said at the outset I'm not a fan of mixing Economics and Biology and I don't think much of the arguments of ID proponents but I wouldn't stoop to comparing them with leftist economists.

[Monti Cello]

Interesting article.

On a related note, I don't understand the left's inclination to treat Darwinism as a refutation of religious belief. They fall into the old Nazi trap of bringing Darwinism into the moral realm, where it inevitably leads to mayhem.

Treating humans as just another chemical species, and more similar than different to animals, kind of reduces morality and self-restraint to a quaint superstition. If evolution alone explains humanity, then an individual's sole objectives ought to be spreading DNA and preventing others from doing so, and any other purpose in a purely material world is for suckers.

[Dimensio]

Treating humans as just another chemical species, and more similar than different to animals, kind of reduces morality and self-restraint to a quaint superstition.

That's the fundamental nature of biology. There's nothing in biology to suggest that humans are any "different" than any other mammal apart from the defining physical characteristics (bipedalism, brain capacity, etc). I've heard objections that such a view is undesirable, but you can't change the basic observations of biology through righteous indignation. Any source of morality is going to have to come from outside of scientific inquiry; defining right and wrong is not a function of any branch of science (something many creationists seem to ignore).

If evolution alone explains humanity, then an individual's sole objectives ought to be spreading DNA and preventing others from doing so, and any other purpose in a purely material world is for suckers.

Actually, no. Evolution simply defines how biological systems operate; it does not describe purpose or suggest that anyone should take any specific course of action.

[Antonello]

Shame on any "conservative" who eagerly embraces the ACLU just because they think they can get a temporary political advantage out of it.

I don't blindly choose (or not choose) my position on an issue just because of what someone else chooses. Do you? If so, then you are allowing the ACLU to decide your beliefs.

[Right Wing Professor]

If evolution alone explains humanity, then an individual's sole objectives ought to be spreading DNA and preventing others from doing so, and any other purpose in a purely material world is for suckers.

Why would you identify your own personal goals with those of your genes?

(And, as a matter of fact, since your own genes are to an extent in competition with each other, which of your genes do you intend to side with?)

[Antonello]

(And, as a matter of fact, since your own genes are to an extent in competition with each other, which of your genes do you intend to side with?)

Speaking of this, have you by chance read through Genes in Conflict by Austin Burt and Robert Trivers? I saw it the other day but didn't pick it up, and was wondering if it would be worth adding to my library.

[Right Wing Professor]

Speaking of this, have you by chance read through Genes in Conflict by Austin Burt and Robert Trivers?

I haven't read it. But the idea that all our genes might not be on the same page is covered even in The Selfish Gene

[Aquinasfan]

It seems to me that the state of "economic nature" that you're talking about is really a primitive state of civilization, not the state of nature that the Enlightenment philosophes and the Founders drew their inspiration from. The state of nature is itself a state of fear

I don't mean Hobbes' state of nature, but something more along the lines of the natural law. Like marriage, trade is a natural institution. It "just happens," with or without laws or other formal social institutions supporting it.

the foundation for civilization is the recognition that men must band together and specialize in order to avoid violent death.

The first principle of the state is the preservation common good. The defense of citizens' lives follows immediately from this first principle. Protection of private property logically follows next. And with private property comes "specialization," or the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker, the universality of which demonstrates the fact that such is part of the natural order.

[ml1954]

...it's never really obvious whether they are part of a grand conspiracy to make conservatives appear ignorant or whether they simply are an ignorant wing of the conservative movement.

IMO, mostly the latter.

[Dumb_Ox]

The Discovery Institute, the promoter of ID, is no different than the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. It's a "non-profit", bringing in serious cash to push a specific agenda for true believers. None of them give a rat's behind about truth, because that wouldn't fit their agenda, or bring in money from the believers.

So what does that say about FR? :)

Any IDer who supports an "intelligently designed economy" run by putatively omniscent, omnicompetent men would likely realize his idolatry sooner or later.

[DoctorMichael]

"......free-market economists are crazy, and that creationists are ignorant rubes......"

I wouldn't use either of these two characterizations as the first is patently wrong and, with respect to the second, I would use the phrase "Useful Idiots" instead.

[aNYCguy]

Good voice you are in this wilderness.

Yoda? Is that you?

[Phocion]

I can see some connections between ID and leftist economic thinking.

Many IDers think it's impossible that life as it exists today could be a result of natural selection of random mutations. It seemingly defies common sense. They don't see how simple competition for reproduction combined with a vast number of possibilities over vast periods of time could possibly result in what looks like the ordered complexity of human life. So they credit a supernatural hand that just waves a wand and creates people.

Similarly, many socialists think that it's impossible that the poor would be better off as a result of each individual acting in his own economic self-interest. It seemingly defies common sense. They don't see how simple competition for resources combined with a vast network of labor and a vast market of demand could possibly result in a wealthy society for all. So they advocate using the hand of government to simply hand over resources to the poor.

Both take the common sense approach. What's the simplest way to explain an animal's existence? Someone made it that way. What's the simplest way for a poor man to earn a living? Hand a living over to him. In reality, careful analysis has shown our intuition to be the wrong approach in both cases. Both underestimate the power of vast systems driven forward by competitive engines.

[Monti Cello]

Why would you identify your own personal goals with those of your genes?

I don't. Perhaps you missed the 'if' at the beginning of my statement. Anyone's decision to have children would obviously align genetic self-propagation with personal goals.

[Right Wing Professor]

Perhaps you missed the 'if' at the beginning of my statement. Anyone's decision to have children would obviously align genetic self-propagation with personal goals.

Perhaps you missed the 'would' in mine?

Actually, the well-being of one's children, each of whom share only 50% of one's genes, isn't completely aligned with the survival of one's genome.

But in any case, I know why evolution would tend to cause one to favor one's biological children; but I'm not sure how New Testament ethics justify favoring them.

[VadeRetro]

Just superb!

[Monti Cello]

I know why evolution would tend to cause one to favor one's biological children; but I'm not sure how New Testament ethics justify favoring them.

That's a good point. I don't see it either.

All I'm saying is that equating Darwinism with religion is nihilistic and ultimately inhumane.

[steve-b]

socialist economics – the economics of Intelligent Design

Direct hit. Target destroyed.

[steve-b]

Historically, other governmental systems imposed against this natural order either collapse or generally exist in a parasitical relationship with the market.

Yes, just as arguments for "intelligent design" either collapse outright or exist in parasitical relationship with real science (by cherry-picking individual scientific discoveries from their context).