Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection

To Seattle area residents the struggle over how evolution is taught in public high schools may seem a topic from the distant past or a distant place.

Don't bet on it. One nearby episode in the controversy has ended, but a far-reaching, Seattle-based agenda to overthrow Darwin is gaining momentum.

Roger DeHart, a high-school science teacher who was the center of an intense curriculum dispute a few years ago in Skagit County, is leaving the state. He plans to teach next year in a private Christian school in California.

The fuss over DeHart's use of "intelligent design" theory in his classes at Burlington-Edison High School was merely a tiny blip in a grand scheme by promoters of the theory.

The theory is essentially this: Life is so complex that it can only be the result of design by an intelligent being.

As unlikely as it may seem, Seattle is ground zero for the intelligent-design agenda, thanks to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and its Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).

Headed by one-time Seattle City councilman and former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Discovery Institute is best known locally for its savvy insights on topics ranging from regionalism, transportation, defense policy and the economy.

In the late '90s, the institute jumped into the nation's culture wars with the CRSC. It may be little known to local folks, but it has caught the attention of conservative religious organizations around the country.

It's bound to get more attention in the future. Just last month, a documentary, Icons of Evolution, premiered at Seattle Pacific University. The video is based on a book of the same name by CRSC fellow Jonathan Wells. It tells the story of DeHart, along with the standard critique of Darwinian evolution that fuels the argument for intelligent design.

The video is part of the anti-Darwin agenda. Cruise the Internet on this topic and you'll find something called the Wedge Strategy, which credits the CRSC with a five-year plan for methodically promoting intelligent design and a 20-year goal of seeing "design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."

Last week, Chapman tried to put a little distance between his institute and the "wedge" document. He said it was a fund-raising tool used four years ago. "I don't disagree with it," he told me, "but it's not our program." (I'll let the folks who gave money based on the proposed strategy ponder what that means.)

Program or not, it is clear that the CRSC is intent on bringing down what one Center fellow calls "scientific imperialism." Surely Stephen Jay Gould already is spinning in his grave. Gould, one of America's most widely respected scientists and a prolific essayist, died just two weeks ago. Among his many fine books is one I kept by my bedside for many weeks after it was published in 1999, "Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life."

In "Rock of Ages," Gould presents an elegant case for the necessary co-existence of science and religion. Rather than conflicting, as secular humanists insist, or blending, as intelligent-design proponents would have it, science and religion exist in distinct domains, what Gould called magisteria (domains of teaching authority).

The domain of science is the empirical universe; the domain of religion is the moral, ethical and spiritual meaning of life.

Gould was called America's most prominent evolutionist, yet he too, was a critic of Darwin's theory, and the object of some controversy within the scientific community. There's a lesson in that: In the domain of science there is plenty of room for disagreement and alternative theories without bringing God into the debate.

I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design. It has appeal as a way to grasp the unknowable why of our existence. But it is only a belief. When advocates push intelligent design as a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations of evolution, it is time to push back.

That's what they continue to do in Skagit County. Last week, the Burlington-Edison School Board rejected on a 4-1 vote a proposal to "encourage" the teaching of intelligent design. Bravo.

Despite proponents' claims of scientific validity, intelligent design is little more than religion-based creationism wrapped in critiques of Darwin and all dressed up in politically correct language. All for the ultimate goal — placing a Christian God in science classrooms of America's public high schools.

There is a problem with your allegory -- when a scientist looks at a living organism, such as man, if he sees that organism as designed he would wonder at the sanity or sobriety of the designer. Let's take man, for instance. The human back is a rather poor compromise between the horizontal back of a quadruped and a proper upright spine. Because of this humans suffer an inordinate amount of back problems (you may have noticed this on your own). Additionally human knees are not quite up to an upright stance, either, causing all sorts of knee problems especially as we get older. The human eye, as has been pointed out before, has a major blind spot right in the middle of its field of vision. This is because the optic nerve lies atop the retina. Humans (and our closest cousins) cannot make Vitamin C which is vital to survival.

Now, evolutionary science can explain all these things (the knees and back because up until relatively recently [geologically speaking] we went around on all fours, the eye because it is the ad hoc affair it appears to be and the Vitamin C deficiency because in our "natural" habitat Vitamin C was plentiful in nature so our bodies didn't need to make it any more.

Others appreciate the opportunity to see the two items which JennyP is doing the crybaby act over. There is a constant flow of people looking at these evolution threads for the first time, and what JennyP is demanding is that these newcomers not be allowed to view the major arguments against her pet ideological doctrine. She is demanding selective censorship of ideas. Other than that, every definition of "spam" I've ever seen involves a profit motive, and I've yet to make the first penny from posting arguments against evolutionism.

I view the struggle against evolution as a sort of a mission from God like John Belushi speaks of in Blue Brothers. It's just a sort of a good deed which I am capable of doing for the world; I have no reason to think there will ever be money in it.

The Egyptian priests, their Gods and their Kingdom are long gone under the sand. Christianity remains. It's called survival of the fittest, isn't it?

But, like the dinosaurs, the Egyptians had a good run. Their kingdom and religion lasted more than twice as long as Christianity's been around (4500 years vs. 2000 years). For their time, the Egyptians were extremely successful; it would be interesting to see if Christianity will be as successful (I believe it will, as it has already "speciated" into nearly 25,000 competing denominations -- one of them or its descendents is bound to survive the next 2500 years).

Other creatures survive without our Western Judeo-Christian, property respecting, life respecting, take-care-of-the-old-and-ill ethics.

Wolves allow the alpha male and female first dibs at a kill, respecting, in a sense, their rights to that "property." Most animals will not kill their own and have a whole series of signals to keep fights from getting out of hand. Lions, wolves and the extinct saber-toothed cats take care of their wounded or ill members (skeletal remains of the latter even show healed broken bones -- wounds which would prove fatal if the animal were left on its own).

But, like the dinosaurs, the Egyptians had a good run. Their kingdom and religion lasted more than twice as long as Christianity's been around (4500 years vs. 2000 years)

That turns out to be not the case. Aside from Gunnar Heinsohn's writings, the two books I advise everybody interested in things Egyptian to get hold of are Emmet J. Sweeney's "Pyramid Age" and "Genesis of Israel and Egypt".

It turns out there is no realistic med-basin history going back more than about 3000 years starting from now. The pyramids were built somewhere around 800 - 900 BC.

You might want to consider the wisdom of associating/linking your enemies to "Crank.Net".

But Ted, you're not my enemy. I think of you as my entertainment. For example:

I view the struggle against evolution as a sort of a mission from God like John Belushi speaks of in Blue Brothers. It's just a sort of a good deed which I am capable of doing for the world; I have no reason to think there will ever be money in it.
283 posted on 6/8/02 8:07 AM Eastern by medved

And here's another example:

The pyramids were built somewhere around 800 - 900 BC.
287 posted on 6/8/02 9:02 AM Eastern by medved

Where else (other than TIME CUBE) can I find stuff like that? I'm not your enemy, Ted. I'm one of your biggest fans.

... when a scientist looks at a living organism, such as man, if he sees that organism as designed he would wonder at the sanity or sobriety of the designer.

There are lots more examples of poor engineering of humans, many equally as obvious as the ones you mentioned. Our teeth aren't great, we are far too subject to various diseases, our hearts give out too soon, and why in the world do any of us have allergies? Why, if we were purposefully designed for this planet, should we be allergic to anything on earth?

"What is happening to American institutions requires both art and science. From its churches to its educational system, from the government and political party system to the military, an invasive form of totalitarian groupthink has been artfully and successfully applied to those institutions."

"Most artistic endeavors require technique of some sort. Even developing an irrational system results in an irrational populace that no longer depends on absolutes or basics or standards. That is true in everything from math and science to literature and government to personal behavior.}

"That is why our U.S. Constitution is now "flexible." With no absolutes, it is easier to manipulate and set the agenda for a nation. With no absolutes, there can be no actual rule of law."

"In the end, what... evolves---is the rule of man."

"Yet that irrational system, and the art that creates it, also requires the jargon of science to make the irrationality appear to be clear and explainable."

In the end, what evolves is the rule of man...mad-men/women!

Interestingly, the same arguments used by the evolution folks sound very similar to the global warming scenario:

1. " The sample record shows that there is a warming trend. And our computer models agree with this. Therefore our computer models have predicted what would happen in the past. So global warming is a fact. "

2. " The fossil record shows that there is a progression of species from the simple to the complex. And our current theories agree with this. Therefore our theories predicted what would happen in the past. So evolution is a natural law. "

Difference here is that the global warming bunch is trying to make future predictions off of computer models that even members of their own community acknowledge have flaws. And yet, this is being used as justification for public policy changes on a massive scale.

Now, before the flames start, I don't necessarily disagree with what is proposed in either line of inquiry. But I do disagree with the amount of hubris involved, and the attempt to teach these things to children who have not yet been exposed to critical thinking skills and analytical thought. In other words, when Behe talks about the mechanisms in biology that are required in order to have a functioning system ( with the subsequent consequences of missing one portion ), and is dismissed by Dawkins with a facile 'it could happened this way' response, I want people to at least recognize that one of the two is at least serious about looking at the science involved.

"Science, math, rational thought are antithetical to what the new totalitarians perceive as recreating mankind in their image. They have even found ways to subvert objective disciplines, along with the facts and truths of math and science in public schools."

"The "new" math, the "new" science – all of it is about creating the re-socialized child for what they see as a world state where everyone will be on same level, get along, have the same "stuff." A world where thinking and opinion will be stilted so that no one will ever experience hurt feelings or think something is "unfair."

"Rather, it will be a predictable, controllable, but rather comfortable mediocrity and sameness. They will create a vanilla person, a Styrofoam cutout, a robot or pliable person directed by those who THINK they know what is best for mankind."

"Eventually, excellence and achievement will only be acceptable or allowed for those who have scrambled to the top of the collectivist heap. The new utopians, the collectivists, are not about freedom, but rather seek to make mankind... willing slaves---to their worldview."

"All these things are connected because they betray and explain a mindset. A worldview, a philosophy that seeks to shape humanity, the individual as a moral relativist, undiscerning, while building a thought pattern that denies or deconstructs facts – even those in math and science."

"Because children are not given the grounding by doing the hard stuff of learning, the memorization, the drills, the creation of pattern and discipline, they will never be truly free to THINK on their own. Without the base, the technique, someone will always be manipulating or recreating them according to the latest fad, trend or totalitarian frame of reference that intellectuals usually succumb to."

"ID is stealth creationism"

There is nothing stealthy about ID being creationism. Nor should there be. The debate of the ages is whether there is a God or not and whether or not He created the universe and all there is within it. Evolution may try to answer how species evolve from one generation to another, but there is one question it can never answer: from whence did the universe come?

medved: [jennyp] is demanding selective censorship of ideas. Other than that, every definition of "spam" I've ever seen involves a profit motive, and I've yet to make the first penny from posting arguments against evolutionism.
I view the struggle against evolution as a sort of a mission from God like John Belushi speaks of in Blue Brothers. It's just a sort of a good deed which I am capable of doing for the world; I have no reason to think there will ever be money in it.

"You know what I'm going to get you next Christmas? A big wooden cross. So that every time you feel unappreciated for your sacrifices, you can climb on up and nail yourself to it." --Lloyd Chasseur (Kevin Spacey), The Ref

I would point out another difference: Evolution does not attempt to make predictions about the future phenotypes of species. The variables that create selection pressure are beyond our ability to calculate.

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.