Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Unintelligible Redesign - This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Slate ^ | 2/13/2002 | William Saletan

Posted on 02/14/2002 3:30:12 PM PST by jennyp

According to scientists, teachers, and civil libertarians, the Taliban has invaded Ohio. Creationists have devised a theory called "Intelligent Design" (ID) and are trying to get Ohio's Board of Education to make sure it's taught alongside Darwinism. Unlike creationism, ID accepts that the Earth is billions of years old and that species evolve through natural selection. It posits that life has been designed but doesn't specify by whom. Liberals call ID a menace that will sneak religion into public schools. They're exactly wrong. ID is a big nothing. It's non-living, non-breathing proof that religion has surrendered its war against science.

Creationism used to be assertive and powerful. Darwinism wasn't allowed in schools. As Darwin gained the upper hand, conservatives fought to preserve creationism alongside evolution. They lost the war on both fronts. Courts struck down the teaching of creationism on the grounds that it mixed church and state. Meanwhile, scientific evidence discredited the belief that the Earth was created in six days and was only 6,000 years old. Like the Taliban, creationists were washed up. Their only hope was to flee to the mountains, shave their beards, change their clothes, and come back as something else.

What they've come back as is the Intelligent Design movement. Gone are the falsifiable claims of a six-day creation and a 6,000-year-old Earth. Gone is the God of the Bible. In their place, ID enthusiasts speak of questions, mysteries, and possibilities. As to whether God, the Force, or ET created us, ID is agnostic. "We simply ask the question as to whether something can form naturally or if there must have been something more, a designer," Robert Lattimer, an ID proponent in Ohio, told the Columbus Dispatch. "Our main contention is that [evolution-focused curriculum] standards are purely naturalistic and leave no room for the possibility that part of nature can be designed."

This soft-headed agnosticism matches the soft-headed arguments for including it in the curriculum. They're the same arguments leftists have made for ebonics. According to ID proponents, the committee in charge of Ohio's science curriculum is too "homogenous" and lacks "diversity." It marginalizes alternative "points of view" to which students should be "exposed." A conservative state senator says some people "think differently, and all those ideas should be explored." A conservative member of the state education board says Ohioans deserve a science curriculum "they can all be comfortable with."

Behind these pleas for diversity is the kind of educational relativism conservatives normally despise. "Biological evolution, like creationism and design, cannot be proved to be either true or false," writes one ID enthusiast in Ohio. Since evolution is an "unproven theory," says another, "belief in it is just as much an act of faith as is belief in creationism or in the theory of intelligent design."

The response of liberals, teachers, and scientists has been hysterical. They accuse the ID movement of peddling "intolerance," fronting for the Christian right, and trying "to force a narrow religious ideology into our schools." If Ohio lets ID into its curriculum, they prophesy, the state will become an "international laughingstock," triggering a corporate exodus, a decline in property values, and the collapse of Ohio's standard of living. They refuse to acknowledge a difference between ID and creationism. "This is just a new paint job on the same old Edsel," says an Ohio University physiologist.

The analogy is inside out. Creationists haven't repainted their Edsel. They've taken out the engine and the transmission. Without distinctive, measurable claims such as the six-day creation, the 6,000-year-old Earth, and other literal interpretations of the Bible, creationism no longer materially contradicts evolution. The reason not to teach intelligent design isn't that it's full of lies or dogma. The reason is that it's empty.

Advocates of ID do offer interesting criticisms of Darwin's theory of evolution. They argue that natural selection doesn't account for the rise and fall of species, that many biological mechanisms wouldn't make organisms more fit to survive unless those mechanisms appeared all at once, and that the combinations necessary to create life are so complex that it would be statistically impossible to generate them by chance. My colleague Bob Wright answered these criticisms in Slate last year. I don't know whether they stand up to his rebuttal or not. But I do know this: They don't add up to a theory.

A theory isn't just a bunch of criticisms, even if they're valid. A theory ties things together. It explains and predicts. Intelligent design does neither. It doesn't explain why part of our history seems intelligently designed and part of it doesn't. Why are our feet and our back muscles poorly designed for walking? Why are we afflicted by lethal viruses? Why have so many females died in childbirth? ID doesn't explain these things. It just shrugs at them. "Design theory seeks to show, based on scientific evidence, that some features of living things may be designed by a mind or some form of intelligence," says one ID proponent. Some? May? Some? What kind of theory is that?

As Wright explains, Darwinian theory makes predictions that can be tested. It predicts that the average difference in size between males and females will correspond to the degree of polygamy in a species, and that in species in which females can reproduce more often than males, females will be more sexually assertive and less discriminating about their sex partners than males will be. These predictions turn out to be true. Darwin claimed that humans had descended from apes. If fossils unearthed since his death had exhibited no such connection, his theory would have been discredited. What empirical predictions does ID make that, if proven untrue, would discredit the theory?

John Calvert, the country's principal exponent of ID, answered that question in a treatise he presented to the Ohio board. Calvert described the "methods" by which scientists can "detect" design in nature.

In summary, if a highly improbable pattern of events or object exhibits purpose, structure or function and can not be reasonably and rationally explained by the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry or some other regularity or law, then it is reasonable to infer that the pattern was designed. — the product of a mind.

That, in a nutshell, is ID. It offers no predictions, scope modifiers, or experimental methods of its own. It's a default answer, a shrug, consisting entirely of problems in Darwinism. Those problems should be taught in school, but there's no reason to call them intelligent design. Intelligent design, as defined by its advocates, means nothing. This is the way creationism ends. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-209 next last

1 posted on 02/14/2002 3:30:12 PM PST by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: crevo_list
ID == Creationism ending with a whimper. Never heard that one before, but maybe he's right. It won't stop me from fighting these dishonest arguments, but still...?
2 posted on 02/14/2002 3:31:57 PM PST by jennyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Head Up!!! But I'll start...the article is a bunch of crap!
3 posted on 02/14/2002 3:38:01 PM PST by Focault's Pendulum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
ID is really based on science, not religion.

Classic Darwinism just isn't true, just doesn't explain, the biological world in general and the origin of humans in particular. Thus some kind of belief in ID has been making its way among the scientifically literate who would (and DO) utterly reject any kind of traditional religion or faith-- more than among those who might have such a faith, but are just retreating and backing off!

Of course ID is still a heresy for any member of leading religions to hold, but it is less ludicrous and unbelievable than (classical darwinian "evolution" =) the billions of years of blank checks drawn upon time, while waiting for chance processes to do what they can never do-- for mere chance to account for what it can never account for.

4 posted on 02/14/2002 3:40:58 PM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Darwin claimed that humans had descended from apes.

Is that statement fact or fiction?

5 posted on 02/14/2002 3:46:17 PM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Just thought you guys might find the following interesting: One of the most prominent Rabbis in the 10th? century, R. Saadyah Gaon, calculated the age of the universe, based upon Scripture, Talmudic, Midrashic, and Kabbalistic sources, at .............................................................................. 15.48 Billion years.
6 posted on 02/14/2002 3:51:13 PM PST by Krafty123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
As Darwin gained the upper hand, conservatives fought to preserve creationism

Libel, and untrue. You'll find conservatives on both sides of the issue. Heck, you'll find believing Christian conservatives on both sides of the issue. Whether you'll find deeply-fundamentalist Christians on both sides is another matter...

7 posted on 02/14/2002 3:51:27 PM PST by Eala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
It really doesn't matter. Now if, in fact, life is billions, maybe even tens of billions of years old - hundreds of billions - it is not possible for it to have originated here on Earth.

All we have to do is find a single microbe fossil from "out there", and anything but ID, or SD (self-design) is about all that's left.

8 posted on 02/14/2002 3:51:55 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Let see here:

Evolution = We came into existence by chance – much like the wind and sand spelling out what might look to be like letters onto a stone. An interesting phenomenon, but meaningless.

Intelligent Design = There is an intelligence behind our creation, thinking, and life.

You can choose the mind you would like to debate this with; evolved by chance, or designed with intelligence.

9 posted on 02/14/2002 3:53:37 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
How did a liberal ficticious religion---evolution take over our govt--schools--society--on the FR too!

The day of the Realatarian Party is here--wither away...the ash heap of history awaits these charlatans and evolution witch doctors when the light of day---reality will end their long night of superstitions, ghosts--goblins and hauntings!

10 posted on 02/14/2002 3:58:46 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Chocolate chip cookies, did they evolve? or were they the concoction of some fabulous baker?
11 posted on 02/14/2002 3:58:47 PM PST by jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Seen the photo of the cloned cat? That's intelligent design, and we are the ones doing it. [not me, I don't think it is a good idea even if we can do it.] Have we become godlike? Won't be easy for Literalists in the years ahead. What if find we can create universes?
12 posted on 02/14/2002 4:03:27 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
ID == Creationism ending with a whimper. Never heard that one before, but maybe he's right. It won't stop me from fighting these dishonest arguments, but still...?

LOL. This from the group who conveniently forget how a shark has gone basically unchanged for millions of years! Dishonest indeed!

13 posted on 02/14/2002 4:05:59 PM PST by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
There is no connection - with your proposed convection.

Was there an intelligent design behind what you typed?

14 posted on 02/14/2002 4:06:47 PM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
problems in Darwinism.

...which refuse to go away.

15 posted on 02/14/2002 4:06:56 PM PST by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
Good article
16 posted on 02/14/2002 4:08:19 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
A little bit of the famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero).

01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.

The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review: The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].

17 posted on 02/14/2002 4:09:15 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
The reason not to teach intelligent design isn't that it's full of lies or dogma. The reason is that it's empty.

I like this summation.
18 posted on 02/14/2002 4:11:21 PM PST by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scully; longshadow; PatrickHenry; ThinkPlease; Physicist; VadeRetro; Doctor Stochastic
bump
19 posted on 02/14/2002 4:11:27 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Bump to you too! :)
20 posted on 02/14/2002 4:12:31 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 201-209 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson