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.
To both sides: you can run, but the Truth will find you.
How can we possibly scientifically investigate the question of intelligent design when we don't even have a scientific definition of intelligence?
More power to you!
There is no inherent conflict between science and religion. Stop assuming there is.
"Perhaps you will object if I refer you to Occam's Razor?"
Simplicity is not the same as simple-minded.
Thereby proving the writer's thesis.
What is the big deal is all about for those that oppose ID?
There are lot of things taught in school that are vague or two sided; nobody seems to get into a tizzy if we call our holiday Presidents day instead of Lincoln or Washington’s Birthday. Where is the outrage and endless debate regarding how the first Americans came to America or about Columbus being a villain or a hero? Nobody can explain to students how the pyramids were built. There are competing theories in textbooks and classroom discussion about many subjects. One would think that a science subject would be the least immune from intolerance of competing ideas?
Isn't that what school is about; to get kids to think for themselves, so how could this be accomplished if there is no debate on competing ideas?
lol!!
"Simplicity is not the same as simple-minded."
Let the condescension begin!
You raise a really interesting question ... just what is the purpose of a 'government school'? I honestly believe it is NOT to get kids to think for themselves or think at all.
In fact, public schools seem to be especially perfect places to minimize the ability of kids to grow their creative tendencies.
I remember all too well the consequences associated w/ asking questions.
God hasn't satisfied every curious questioner. As far as I know and understand the answers are not available yet.
It's amazing how someone can be so wrong on legal, ethical, theological and practical issues, all in one article!
Wonder of he knows about "The Legal Duck?"
It is connected to the FOOT. (Friends Of Ontological Theories.)
Wonder IF he knows....
Himself.
"I Am That I Am."
Thanks for posting the article - it is excellent!
So, in conclusion, be careful what you wish for. You think you are wishing for acceptence and acknowledgement of God - a creator. But, what you are really asking everyone to do is to twist words, definitions, and reality in order to get your way - same as the liberals and commies.
But, it's ok that you want to twist science, the world and reality for your own personal (whether noble or not) belief system. After all, it's only "for the children" - or for "everybody's own good".
Sound familiar?
I think he knows. He may not know that he knows, but he knows. ;)
"There are lot of things taught in school that are vague or two sided; nobody seems to get into a tizzy if we call our holiday Presidents day instead of Lincoln or Washington’s Birthday."
I don't have a problem with ID being taught in school; it could be taught in a philosophy or religious studies class - it could also be taught in a science course, but only as an example of a non-scientific theory. Why is it non-scientific? First because it is not testable: it is impossible to design a test which potentially falsifies the existence of an intelligent creator. Why is this the case? It has to do with the nature of random sequences and the fact that it is mathematically impossible to differentiate a random sequence from a non-random but highly complex sequence. The second show-stopper is that there is no scientific definition of "intelligence." How can we possibly study intelligent design when we don't even know how to define intelligence. It does not belong in a science class. If there are weaknesses with the way that evolution is taught in school then those need to be corrected. We don't solve the problem by adding more nonsense to the science education of our children.
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.