[RightWingAtheist]

The Derb published this back in February, but is now archived at his website along with the rest of the wit and wisdom of one of conservatism's brightest lights. It is by far the best defense of evolution and criticism of ID which I've read in a mainstream publication, and now it's here for everyone to read, with the most brilliant point made by Derbyshire (an obvious one which even evolution's defenders fail to point out enough) placed in bold by your's truly.

He's a conservative, written several popular mathematics books, a defender of science and reason against silliness of all kinds, and was in a fight scene in a Bruce Lee movie. John Derbyshire is the coolest man alive.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[RightWingAtheist]

For the list?

[snarks_when_bored]

I, too, enjoy Derbyshire's work. But I wish he wouldn't be quite so ready to acknowledge 'the ineffable':

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

I see in this the fallacy of the appeal to awe (as it were). Why should one believe that the thoughts of a deity—should such a being be—are 'higher' than the thoughts of we denizens of the physical world? Indeed, what does this 'higher' even mean? It seems to me to be a roundabout way of saying, "Wow, man, wow!", and not much more than that.

Still, Derbyshire's book, Prime Obsession, is a first-rate piece of popular writing about mathematics. I recommend it, er, highly!

[Gumlegs]

Thanks for posting this. IMHO, this is the money-quote: I had written it off as a 1990s fad infecting religious and metaphysical circles, not really touching on science at all, since it framed no hypotheses that could be tested experimentally.

Some things haven't changed since the 1990s.

[Dumb_Ox]

In my opinion, the best smackdown on ID was laid by Edward T. Oakes in his First Things review of Johnson's Wedge of Truth and his response to critics in a following issue. First Things had been publishing lots of IDers previously, but they tapered off considerably after Oakes' critique.

[RightWhale]

the fired-up young biologists who will revolutionize our lives in these coming decades take the standard evolutionary model

Darwinianism is a method moreso than a theory. As such, it has gone far, and seems to reside naturally and easily, in the field of social science. ID, however, may have equally wide application in social science and law. The question becomes whether history itself is Darwinian or ID. Darwinianism was very popular among Republicans a century ago; now the radical wing seems to think it is a Progressive thing and they must have something of their own.

[curiosity]

Next time put a hook in the title. Like "intelligent design" or "evolution" or Darwin. It won't atract much attention otherwise.

[DaveTesla]

I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details.
Albert Einstein

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
Albert Einstein

God always takes the simplest way.
Albert Einstein

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
Albert Einstein

God does not play dice.
Albert Einstein

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Albert Einstein

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
Albert Einstein

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
Albert Einstein

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Albert Einstein

[silverleaf]

Funny that he didn't mention that Einstein believed in Intelligent Design.

[Right Wing Professor]

Brilliant piece. Thanks for posting it.

[semaj]

Whoops. Thought this was a discussion questioning the theory of evolution.

[Bommer]

The famous “monkey trial” in Dayton, Tenn., happened 80 years ago this summer. John Scopes, a young schoolteacher, was found guilty of violating a state statute forbidding the teaching of evolution theory

Load of crap. Darrow asked the judge to instruct the jury to find Scopes guilty and thereby prevented any closing arguments. This was a predetermined strategy so that Bryan, who was a terrific speaker, could not give his closing statements dealing with the scientific challenges to evolution and the negative effects of social Darwinism. By doing this Darrow also ensured a guilty verdict so that the case could be appealed and the constitutionality of the law challenged in the state supreme court.

Bryan did not ask for harsher punishment but instead offered to pay the fine for Scopes![xx] Bryan had objected to the law imposing a penalty when he first learned of anti-evolution laws being considered by state legislatures.

[Kevin OMalley]

read later bump

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Ah the good old "Annalen der Physik". Which, of coursse, is translated into the "Anal Physics."

A lot of people didn't realize just how many German physicists were really into gay porn. However, I have been told that Einstein subscribed to the journal "just for the articles".

[r9etb]

but because I.D. promises them nothing — no reproducible results, no research leads, no fortune-making discoveries in genomics or neuroscience.

It's rather interesting that Mr. Derbyshire can start off the sentence saying that ID promises them nothing, and finishes up by saying that if "they" do ID themselves, they can make a fortune.

It's absolutely correct to say that if the ID folks want to be included in "science," they have to do a lot better job of being scientific. At the same time, this particular sentence shows the difficulty with honestly dismissing ID out of hand: it's an inherently plausible explanation.

At some point, there will be a need for biologists to be able to find and identify the handiwork of other biologists in various life forms (think, e.g., bioweapons, if nothing else). I suspect that this will finally put to bed the oft-repeated claim that ID us "untestable."

[GreenOgre]

How many non-fundamentalist Christians or Jews believe in ID? ID is a "scientific theory" based on religious beliefs. Can anybody point to Hindu, Buddist, or Atheist scientists who support ID?

[b_sharp]

Self referent reference place marker.

[claptrap]

There is no evidence for evolution a process which has either stopped or never happened for instance why dont fishermen develop webbed feet and gills to enhance their survival, why are apes still apes why havent penguins developed a defense from those nasty seals the whole premise of evolution is laughable the laws of nature like gravity are observable, but where is evolution where is any link between serpent and lizard between man and monkey
and if there is a missing link why would it dissappear but the monkey and man live on?