Posted on 10/07/2005 4:03:19 AM PDT by gobucks
It doesn't matter if you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's true or not. Intelligent Design theory is destined to supplant Darwinism as the primary scientific explanation for the origin of human life. ID will be taught in public schools as a matter of course. It will happen in our lifetime. It's happening right now, actually.
Here's why:
1) ID will win because it's a religion-friendly, conservative-friendly, red-state kind of theory, and no one will lose money betting on the success of red-state theories in the next fifty to one hundred years.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: families that reproduce people tend to reproduce ideas, as well. The most vocal non-scientist proponents of ID are those delightfully fertile Catholics, Evangelicals, and similarly right-leaning middle-class college-educated folk -- the kind whose children will inherit the country. Eventually, the social right will have the sheer manpower to teach ID wherever they please.
Despite what angry ID opponents may tell you, the advent of ID won't hurt American productivity a bit. Belief in ID does nothing to make believers less capable in science or engineering. No geek in the world will find his computer mojo diminished because of his opinions on irreducible complexity. To the contrary: ID might make biology and the natural sciences more appealing to believers who might otherwise find science to be too far removed from God's presence. As ID appeals to the conservative mindset without hurting anyone's skills, why wouldn't the social right embrace it?
To be sure, believers don't need ID to accept modern science. The Catholic Church, for example, made peace with traditional Darwinist theory long ago. Many scientists see no contradiction between Darwinism and their own religious beliefs. Rightly understood, Darwinist theory doesn't diminish God's glory any more than any other set of rules governing the world. An omnipotent God can act through scientific media as well as miraculous interventions.
But if ID is correct, then the intelligent designer of life must have lavished astonishing care and attention upon the human race to give it unique dignity and value -- as well as handicaps and temptations that only virtue can overcome. The God of Moses and Jesus didn't leave fingerprints at this scene, but it's His MO all the way. And as believers are detectives of the Almighty's presence, they're naturally more inclined to follow the clues revealing that familiar pattern.
2) ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.
"Ewww…intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads."
There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90% of the responses to the ID position. Vitriol, condescension, and endless accusations of bad faith all characterize far too much of the standard pro-Darwinian response to criticism. A reasonable observer might note that many ID advocates appear exceptionally well-educated, reasonable, and articulate; they might also note that ID advocates have pointed out many problems with the Darwinist catechism that even pro-Darwin scientists have been known to concede, when they think the Jesus-kissing crowd isn't listening. And yet, even in the face of a sober, thoughtful ID position, the pro-Darwin crowd insists on the same phooey-to-the-boobgeois shtick that was tiresome in Mencken's day. This is how losers act just before they lose: arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults. Pride goeth before a fall.
3) ID will win because it can be reconciled with any advance that takes place in biology, whereas Darwinism cannot yield even an inch of ground to ID.
So you've discovered the missing link? Proven that viruses distribute super-complex DNA proteins? Shown that fractals can produce evolution-friendly three-dimensional shapes? It doesn't matter. To the ID mind, you're just pushing the question further down the road. How was the missing link designed? What is the origin of the viruses? Who designed the fractals? ID has already made its peace with natural selection and the irrefutable aspects of Darwinism. By contrast, Darwinism cannot accept even the slightest possibility that it has failed to explain any significant dimension of evolution. It must dogmatically insist that it will resolve all of its ambiguities and shortcomings -- even the ones that have lingered since the beginning of Darwinism. The entire edifice of Darwinian theory comes crashing down with even a single credible demonstration of design in any living thing. Can science really plug a finger into every hole in the Darwinian dyke for the next fifty years?
4) ID will win because it can piggyback on the growth of information theory, which will attract the best minds in the world over the next fifty years.
ID is a proposition about information. It contends that the processes of life are so specific and carefully ordered that they must reflect deliberate action. Put simply: a complex message implies an even more complex sender. Separating ordered but random data from relevant, purposeful data -- that is, separating noise from messages -- is one of the key undertakings of the 21st century. In nearly every field, from statistics to quantum physics to cryptology to computer science, the smartest people on the planet are struggling to understand and apply the unfathomable power of information that modern technology has bequeathed to them. We have only scratched the surface of the problem-solving power that the Internet and cheap computing power open to us. As superior intellects strive to understand the metaphysics of information, they will find the information-oriented arguments of ID increasingly sensible and appealing. ID will fit nicely into the emerging worldview of tomorrow's intellectual elite.
This emerging worldview will take a more expansive view of science than does the current elite. Consider the "meme" meme. We all know what a meme is: a thought pattern that spreads from person to person and group to group like a viral infection spreading through a population. Yet memes cannot be bisected, or examined under a microscope, or "falsified" via the scientific method. Even so, we can make statements about memes with varying degrees of objective truthfulness. Is it possible to speak of a "science" of concepts? Right now, the scientific establishment says no. This unhelpful understanding of science will soon be discarded in favor of something more useful in the information age.
5) ID will win because ID assumes that man will find design in life -- and, as the mind of man is hard-wired to detect design, man will likely find what he seeks.
The human mind seeks order in everything. The entire body of knowledge available to mankind reflects our incorrigible desire to analyze, systemize, hypothesize, and theorize. It may well be that our brains are physically configured in such a way that we can't help but find order and design in the world. Don't look so surprised, evolutionists -- a brain attuned to order and design is a brain more likely to survive. The ability to detect design is essentially the ability to detect patterns, and the ability to detect patterns is the key to most applications of human intelligence. Hammers tend to find nails, screwdrivers tend to find screws, and the human mind tends to find design. Of course, the propensity to see designs doesn't mean that the designs aren't actually there. But the quintessential human perception is one of design -- and, to the extent that perceptions define reality, a theory built on the perception of design has a huge advantage over its competitors.
The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end. Rightly or wrongly, the future belongs to ID. There's nothing irreducibly complex about it.
Douglas Kern is a lawyer and TCS contributor. To see another view of the debate over ID, read "Descent of Man in Dover" by Sallie Baliunas on TCS today.
I don't propose to understand all of ID. I just know enough to know that it's not science. I won't even argue whether or not it's true. My ENTIRE argument is that it is not science.
I'll settle for one.
Unless you are on a school board, I doubt you will have much say in the actual debate.
It won't happen because no one is prepared to accept the deaths of nearly 6 billion people.
Or, for that matter, about the nature of numbers, random or otherwise. If random can not be proven, perhaps it is because there is no such phenomenon.
************
I couldn't agree more.
For the dumb-downed MTV generation, it might just be the ticket. Avoids all that pesky thinking, and stuff.
Frenetic, If you are talking about the bird beak thing, I believe we are only seeing an example of natural selection in that situation. These birds did not gain additional DNA/information, they simply selected for a certain beak or feathe type. I believe if you brought these "evolved" birds back into a larger (mainland) community, you would find that they would breed with the "old" type and that the offspring would be just like their ancestors. That is not the same as evolution (evolution says that new information is added by random mutations), although TOE advocates frequently use these types of things as examples of such.
A similar example: Canis lupus familiaris (domestic dog). While the many type of dogs look like examples of evolution, they are not. They are all dogs. No additional information (traits) were genetically added to get a Chiwawa or a Great Dane. Simply certain trains were selected for over and over and over. And if that male Chiwawa somehow impregnated the Great Dane female, you still have a Canis lupus familiaris dog.
I would argue that TOE truly breaks down at every level when evaluated objectively.
Regards.
You know, I haven't even read any of the responses on this thread -- but I wondered how many posts it would be before someone came along and perfectly illustrated the author's point #2, without any evidence of self-awareness whatever.
(Checking)
Well, #3 and #5 are pretty close already; #8 makes for a repeat-offender within the first ten posts; #16 is textbook.
Dan
*************
No one was keeping you from it. Feel free to post at any time.
************
Of course one can. One may or may not agree, but one can certainly understand.
It is interesting that the proponents of the theory of evolution seem to find ID very scary and threatening. Why is that? For the most part, those on the ID side don't fear the theory of evolution.
Most of us have learned all about the Greek and Roman gods at some point during our school years and that doesn't threaten us. Why can't ID be presented as a competing theory without striking fear in the hearts of dissenters?
Why do evolution and ID have to be an either/or choice? To the Christian who can't deal with evolution, I would ask: How do you deal with the concept of the Trinity? One God, or three? You can accept the fact that you don't understand it, can't you?
To the scientist, I would ask: What is light? A particle or a wave?
http://wardsci.com/product.asp_Q_pn_E_366005_A_Primordial+Soup:+Study+of+Evolution+Lab+Activity
"while the work of scientists like Redi and Pasteur disproved the reality of spontaneous generation of life under present-day conditions, it is believed that condition of the primordial Earth may have allowed it to occur."
this whole "study of Evolution" "teacher's guide" is dedicated to abiogenesis.
****************
I don't know. Fear is a powerful emotion.
Scientists do not oppose ID because it is wrong. They oppose it because it is impossible for it to be wrong.
There is no possible way to demonstrate that any given phenomenon or state of being is not the result of outside, invisible intervention.
The only thing of interest to science is whether a process can be the result of regular, ongoing rules.
Nope. It's Odin.
Thank you so much for the ping! It's a very engaging article!!!
First off: I don't believe I've ever read any "ID website". I have read the "scientific literature", including primary source material, on many subjects.
Second: I oppose people who make statements such as "If you believe Darwin, you're no Christian"
Third: I know MANY SCIENTISTS who support ID in one form or another, believing that Darwinian theory is simply not adequate to explain the way life apparently arose on Earth.
Fourth: stating that "micro-evolution is merely a subset of macro-evolution" says nothing about the veracity of Intelligent Design theory and subsets of ID.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.