The Left’s Intelligent Design Problem by Max Borders

Tech Central Station ^ | 04 Jan 2006 | Max Borders

[Nicholas Conradin]

Scion of America’s greatest Keynesian, James K. Galbraith recently penned one of the most astonishing near misses in recent memory. In the December/January edition of Mother Jones Galbraith accuses free-market economists starting with Adam Smith of being Intelligent Design (ID) hucksters.

“Economists… have been Intelligent Designers since the beginning,” Galbraith writes. “Adam Smith was a deist; he believed in a world governed by a benevolent system of natural law… Smith's Creator did not interfere. He simply wrote the laws and left them for events to demonstrate and man to discover.” Galbraith’s analogy is badly forced. But it is forced ultimately to synthesize two of the left’s favorite bromides: that free-market economists are crazy, and that creationists are ignorant rubes.

Galbraith (deliberately?) misunderstands the bulk of the arguments for ID. After all, if “Smith’s Creator did not interfere,” his analogy with ID does not hold. ID depends on the idea of a Designer’s interference in the process of forming complex life-forms. By contrast, there’s Darwin, whose process is seemingly blind and purposeless.

Indeed, if ever there were a view of economics that builds in the blind, purposeless processes of trial-and-error, specialization, and complexity (the hallmarks of the Darwinian algorithm) it is Smith’s invisible-hand economics -- the Austrian variants of which are the most strikingly evolutionary in character. It is therefore odd that Galbraith calls his article “Smith v. Darwin.”

Indeed, if ever there were a view of economics that builds in the blind, purposeless processes of trial-and-error, specialization, and complexity (the hallmarks of the Darwinian algorithm) it is Smith’s invisible-hand economics -- the Austrian variants of which are the most strikingly evolutionary in character. It is therefore odd that Galbraith calls his article “Smith v. Darwin.” Indeed, it is the economics of the left, so affectionately espoused by Galbraith and his compatriots, that is secular Intelligent Design par excellence.

Consider quotes like this from the New York Times’ Paul Krugman: “What's interesting about [the Bush Administration] is that there's no sign that anybody's actually thinking about ‘well, how do we run this economy?’”

The very idea of “running” an economy is predicated upon the notion that economies can be run and fine-tuned, much like a machine. But what Krugman and folks like Galbraith fail to understand is that the economy isn’t a machine at all, but an ecosystem. And ecosystems aren’t designed, they evolve.

Recall the last time you were in a room with both liberals and conservatives. If the liberal heard the conservative start to talk about Intelligent Design, you might have seen him shake his head rather smugly. Why? Because he will have read his Kaufmann, his Dawkins, and of course, his Darwin. He’ll let the creationist say his piece, and then he’ll reply along these lines:

As long as the basic regularities of nature are in place, Darwinism and complexity theory predict that the myriad forms of life and details of the world will emerge from the simplest substructures -- i.e. atoms, amino acids, DNA and so on. The world doesn’t need a designer. The complexity of the world is a spontaneously generated order. The laws of nature yield emergent complexity through autocatalytic processes.

But does our smug Darwinist extend this self-same rationale beyond life’s origins?

He ought to; because like our diverse ecosystems, a complex, well-ordered society arises from the existence of certain kinds of basic rules, norms, and institutions (societal DNA, if you will).

The critic may try in ad hoc fashion to reply that such institutions are “designed.” But this rejoinder misses the point. Once you start to argue about the development of institutions, it’s rather like arguing about how the laws of nature came to be. And these are rather separate discussions, ones that push the question of a Designer back to a point before evolutionary processes are set in motion. In any case, proper institutional rules obviate the need for central planners and technocrats to control the economy. And like any other ecosystem, the economy will always resist being bent to a designer’s will.

People on the political left, while characterizing conservatives as being flat-earthers, do believe in a form of Intelligent Design. For like their conservative counterparts who believe that nothing as complex as nature could possibly have emerged without being designed, Beltway bureaucrats and DNC Keynesians believe nothing as complex as an economy can exist without being shaped in their image.

What both fail to realize is that neither needs a planner. Markets (individual actors in cooperation) do a better job of self-regulation than any government official can do from on high. Ecosystems (complex flora and fauna interacting in complex ways) regulate themselves better than the most determined ecologist ever could.

In fact, the intersession of bureaucrats in the economy almost always make things worse -- as harmful unintended consequences follow from their actions. Because unlike the Intelligent Designer favored by Creationists, bureaucrats are neither omniscient, nor omnipotent.

A further, delicious irony in all of these quibbles about the relative merits of Intelligent Design comes in the fact that conservative proponents of ID may have borrowed their tactics directly from the left. According to philosopher Stanley Fish, writing in Harper’s:

“[The ‘teach the controversy’ battle cry] is an effective one, for it takes the focus away from the scientific credibility of Intelligent Design -- away from the question, ‘Why should it be taught in a biology class?’ -- and puts it instead on the more abstract issues of freedom and open inquiry. Rather than saying we’re right, the other guys are wrong, and there are the scientific reasons why, Intelligent Design polemicists say that every idea should at least get a hearing; that unpopular or minority views should always be represented; that questions of right and wrong should be left open; that what currently counts as knowledge should always be suspect, because it will typically reflect the interests and preferences of those in power. These ideas have been appropriated wholesale from the rhetoric of multiculturalism -- “

Of course, no self-respecting liberal will admit that his conceptual latticework is analogous to ID any more than he’ll admit that a minority view like ID should be protected from “hegemonic control by those in power” in the interests of “diversity.” I’ll leave it to the leftist intellectual to further plumb the depths of postmodernism and explain away the hypocrisy.

In the meantime, I’d like to know why, by the left’s own rationale, we should be teaching socialist economics – the economics of Intelligent Design -- in our public universities.

Max Borders is Managing Editor of TCSDaily.com. He is also founder of The Wingbeat Project

[r9etb]

Natural selection isn't random either

Mutations are assumed to be random, and those are the supposed analog to individual economic decisions. Because the latter are obviously not random, the analogy fails.

This is a basic, basic, difference. You're looking at the problem from way out in statisticsland, saying that because they look the same from way out there, the underlying mechanisms must be the same as well. But of course they're not the same mechanisms.

Evolution and economics are not the same. One is a statistical result of random mutations. The other is a statistical result of intelligent decisions.

[Senator Bedfellow]

I disagree that you can't make money off short term fluctuations, BTW

You can, but the circumstances where you can are far more limited than most people think - day-trading is essentially high-stakes bookmaking minus the athletic field, for instance. On the other hand, in one of my past lives, I helped put together software for currency arbitrage - don't try this at home kids, the computers are faster than you are ;) - to exploit differences in currency valuations, so it can be done in some situations.

[r9etb]

the mechanism of variation is in general irrelevant to evolution.

And thus, there's no absolutely no scientific problem with the idea that an intelligent designer might be the mechanism of variation, right?

But of course you disagree with that -- it turns out that the mechanism turns out to be quite relevant, precisely at the point of interest in this article. For an economy, the mechanism of variation is intelligent decisions, the very thing that you say cannot be part of a scientific theory of evolution.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Mutations are assumed to be random, and those are the supposed analog to individual economic decisions.

Why, because you say so? The pressures that cause companies (or stocks) to succeed or fail aren't random, and the pressures that cause species to succeed or fail aren't random. Within its limits, the analogy is pretty good.

Evolution and economics are not the same.

Of course they're not - the argument is merely that they are analogous in some respects. Which they clearly are.

[Right Wing Professor]

And thus, there's no absolutely no scientific problem with the idea that an intelligent designer might be the mechanism of variation, right?

That would be no problem for evolution. As I've said before, if you just systematically went through each individual in a population, changing one base at a time, evolution would still occur. However, there's no scientific way we can study the proposition that some Kosmic Kritter is playing games with our genomes.

But of course you disagree with that -- it turns out that the mechanism turns out to be quite relevant, precisely at the point of interest in this article. For an economy, the mechanism of variation is intelligent decisions, the very thing that you say cannot be part of a scientific theory of evolution.

You mean, intelligent ideas like online pet-food sales?

One half of all small businesses close in their first four years.

[Senator Bedfellow]

You mean, intelligent ideas like online pet-food sales?

None of that nonsense for me - all my money's in tulip bulbs ;)

[BMCDA]

Semper Augustus placemarker

[Virginia-American]

Law Merchant

Thanks, I'd never heard of that (and I'm in the midst of reading Tuchman's "Distant Mirror")

[PatrickHenry]

Another service of
Darwin Central
The conspiracy that cares

[skr]

Why is God "weird" for designing animals to behave like animals?

[Right Wing Professor]

Why is God "weird" for designing animals to behave like animals?

Doubtless I'm a prude, but if I were designing a chimpanzee, I would not have included the rather prurient feature of a propensity for trading sex for fruit.

[Senator Bedfellow]

Good book, although Tuchman makes the period seem a bit grimmer than it actually was. Which is actually quite a feat, when you think about it, since the 14th century was kind of grim to begin with. ;)

[narby]

Back in the early 70s I read an article by Noam Chomsky ridiculing the idea that human language could be the product of evolution.

I've read that people who are susceptible to cults of various stripes often will go from one to another without a thought about the inherent contradictions of their beliefs. For example, someone who belongs to an "end-of-the-world-on-this-date-certain" cult may join another similar cult after the first date comes and goes and they're still here.

Perhaps in the 70's Chomsky was a bit more religious (and there are lefty denominations out there) and focused on that rather than his communism beliefs.

[BillyBoy]

>> This article is right on target. Nope, but it's a new spin, anyway. We'll just have to completely ignore the blatant fact that the loudest allies of the Darwinists are left wing activists - the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Morris Dees, Barney Frank, etc... 49 posted on 01/05/2006 5:50:40 AM CST by Hacksaw <<

>> Pennsylvania . . . Gov. Rendell backs evolution... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1494223/posts Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1520711/posts Just mythoughts <<

Perhaps you just completely ignore the blantant fact that the biggest ally of creationism-in-public-schools was THIS guy:

William Jennings Bryan

Far left-wing social & labor "activist" and three time DEMOCRAT nominee for President (thankfully defeated by sane rational conservatives)

"Byran was one of the greatest campaigners in American history, making many innovations and made himself the most important leader of the DEMOCRAT party from 1896 to 1912. He graduated from Illinois College in 1881 and after studying law in Chicago he practised law in Jacksonville and Nebraska before being elected to the US Congress in 1890. Bryan soon established himself as one of the nation's leading orators. A Democrat with progressive views, he supported campaigns for graduated income tax, labour unions, and woman's rights. . Defeated in 1894 he was appointed editor of the Omaha World Herald before becoming the Democratic presidential candidate in 1896. In his presidential bids he energetically promoted Free Silver in 1896, anti-imperialism in 1900, and anti-trust in 1908, calling on all "true Democrats" to renounce conservatism, fight the trusts and big banks, and embrace progressive ideas. He became Secretary of State in 1913, under President Woodrow Wilson. In the 1920s he was a strong supporter of Prohibition, but is probably best known today for his outspoken criticism of Darwinism, which culminated in the Scopes Trial in 1925."

Interesting how the "conservative" Tennesseans pushing for creationism had no problem getting in bed with this failed socialist leader to promote THEIR "cause" in the 20s, eh?

[BillyBoy]

See post #154