What's the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?

The American Spectator ^ | 12/22/2005 12:05:03 AM | Dan Peterson

[Sweetjustusnow]

In the past decade or two, a group of scientists, biologists, mathematicians, philosophers, and other thinkers have marshaled powerful critiques of Darwinian theory on scientific and mathematical grounds. Although they generally don't dispute that evolution of some sort has occurred, they vigorously contest the neo-Darwinian claim that life could arise by an undirected, purely material process of chance variation and natural selection.

[Sweetjustusnow]

More fodder for flamers... ;)

[Publius6961]

What's the Big Deal About Intelligent Design?

I love articles and posts with such useful economical headlines.

Either way, from both perspectives, pro or con, it is a "Big Deal" only to persons so easily obsessed as to be on my lifetime Avoid at all Costs list...

[fizziwig]

"It is precisely because intelligent design relies exclusively on scientific methods, evidence, and reasoning that the Darwinist establishment is going bonkers"

Ouch....even a falling house of cards still hurts. I feel your pain Darwin freaks...but you'll get over it.

[bronxboy]

There is a joke about scientist talking to God and stating they could create life from only dirt. God than states can you create the dirt? The current orthodoxy about Darwinism is worse than the Inquisition. I believe the current crop of scientist would put others to the pyre if they were allowed. The same for global warming, oil depletion, etc.

[tallhappy]

ID bothers the puerile peter pan posters like those here -- lost boys who never grew up and are still rebelling against the church ;lady who upbraided them when they were 13.

At another level, the sloppy and lazy science that is in so much evoutionary work is easily criticized for the simplistic logic and simplistic nature.

Someone like Philip Johnston and otheres are very sharp people who know logic argument and rhetoric.

Their citicisms hit a nerve because they are right in their criticisms of the intellectual efforts going in to much evoutionary discussion.

It took these lawyers and other religious conservatives to point out the tautologies and banal ideas put forth because mainstream active biologists pay no attention to the archaic and essentially anachronistic students of evolution.

[r9etb]

Either way, from both perspectives, pro or con, it is a "Big Deal" only to persons so easily obsessed as to be on my lifetime Avoid at all Costs list...

LOL! There's something to that....

On the other hand, when conducted civilly the debate can be really quite interesting and fun.

[js1138]

The big guns of ID like Michael Behe, accept common descent as a given.

Denton, author of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," believes in fine tuning, the idea that the universe was set up at creation to produce evolution. Denton's ideology is one hundred percent compatible with mainstream biology.

I haven't been able to figure out why creationists think ID supports a young earth interpretation.

[Steve_Seattle]

"At another level, the sloppy and lazy science that is in so much evoutionary work is easily criticized for the simplistic logic and simplistic nature."

The irony is that conventional evolutionary theory is not a "hard" science, yet its defenders treat any critique of it as "anti-science." I've gone a bit overboard in some of my comments to those people, but they strike me as insufferably smug, and that is one quality that pushes my buttons.

[staytrue]

I haven't been able to figure out why creationists think ID supports a young earth interpretation.

It is because they think the Bible says so and therefore it is, QED.

and this is why ID is ridiculed by scientists.

[fizziwig]

"I haven't been able to figure out why creationists think ID supports a young earth interpretation."

Creationism...i.e a literal interp of the old testament, is a different version of "Intelligent Design." The two get mixed up frequently and this causes endless and meaningless exchanges between ID folk and Darwinists. Creationist ID is the straw man used by Darwinists to dismiss all ID.

[tallhappy]

Yes exactly. Well said.

[Steve_Seattle]

I'm not aware of any mainstream proponent of ID who argues for a young earth or a 6,000 year-old earth.

[manwiththehands]

This thread ought to be fun. Thanks for the flame material!

Whatever the courts may decide, the intelligent design cat is already out of the bag. President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist have endorsed acquainting students with ID.

May I be the first to say that if you reject ID you are against President George W. Bush!

"You are either with us or with the terrorists."

/sarc

[staytrue]

The current orthodoxy about Darwinism is worse than the Inquisition.

Actually, The current orthodoxy about ID is worse than the Inquisition because if you disagree, you disagree with the creationists interpretation of GOD.

[liberallarry]

The Dover statement observes that Darwin's theory is only a theory, not fact; notes that intelligent design is an explanation that differs from Darwin's view

Religious explanations are also just theories - crappy, primitive, unscientific theories.

The Dover school board, by the way, did not cut back the teaching of Darwinian evolution in its schools

The judge offered a far less flattering description of the school board members who voted for ID...and the voters turned them out of office.

[staytrue]

do a google on creationism young earth

Results 1 - 10 of about 544,000 for creationism young earth. (0.20 seconds)

[GreenOgre]

Any train of thought relying on "God made it." is not scientific.

[Alberta's Child]

I haven't had much to say on this subject, mainly because there is a much bigger issue here that nobody really talks about. The controversy over Darwinian Evolution vs. Intelligent Design in public schools overlooks the fact that most students these days lack the basic rational and logical thought processes to study science in any meaningful way in the first place. There is really no reason -- from a scientific standpoint, that is -- to teach scientific matters to kids who are increasingly incapable of handling many of the basic reading, writing, comprehension, and mathematical skills that used to be taken for granted in this country.

[blowfish]

May I be the first to say that if you reject ID you are against President George W. Bush!

Well: "Sorry George, but I'm siding with Darwin on this one!"

[WmCraven_Wk]

Core of the Argument: The arguments put forth by the ID theorists -- hammering home the fundamental, longstanding, unresolved flaws in Darwinism, and demonstrating affirmatively that life exhibits evidence of design -- have not been refuted. Counterarguments fly as fast in this debate as the arguments, and neither side can claim victory. It is precisely because intelligent design relies exclusively on scientific methods, evidence, and reasoning that the Darwinist establishment is going bonkers. But there is another reason that goes even deeper. Let us suppose for a moment that the scientific evidence, evaluated in a truly impartial manner, would strongly point to design by a creator rather than to undirected natural forces as the source of life. Let us suppose, just for the sake of argument, that this evidence was really quite manifest and clear. What then? Would all the scientists, philosophers, political advocacy groups, teachers' unions, journalists, and others who were previously committed to Darwinism follow that evidence exactly where it leads? Would they shrug and say, "Oh, OK. We were wrong," and admit that the design thesis is the best explanation? Or would a large body of opinion, scientific and otherwise, insist that anything that points to a creator, regardless of the evidence, is automatically "not science"? A designer who actually works in the world is a concept that some cannot admit even to be a possibility. It is ruled out in advance on philosophical grounds. Although there are nuances and intermediate positions, ID has stirred up a conflict between two competing worldviews: materialism and theism.