The Bad Astronomer sent me a link to an article claiming Intelligent Design is sorely misunderstood. In brief, the author claims that (1) there is real scientific evidence for Intelligent Design (it’s not religiously inspired, oh no), and (2) Intelligent Design’s proponents are not crusading to have it taught in schools:
The first misunderstanding is that intelligent design is based on religion rather than science. Design theory is a scientific inference based on empirical evidence, not religious texts. [Snip] Although controversial, design theory is supported by a growing number of scientists in scientific journals, conference proceedings and books. While intelligent design may have religious implications (just like Darwin's theory), it does not start from religious premises. A second misunderstanding is that proponents of intelligent design theory are crusading to have it required in public schools. In fact, they are doing the opposite.
(Rather strangely, the author thinks there are three points here.)
Saying there is no attempt to mandate the teaching of ID is disingenuous at best. ID proponents present their “teach the controversy” argument purely because Intelligent Design is not an explanation in its own right, it is merely a series of criticisms of evolution. All they have is the controversy they have manufactured; even if their criticisms of evolution are true (they’re not), they still wouldn’t have a scientific theory to teach. Teaching the so-called “holes” in evolution is teaching ID.
More importantly, the two supposed misunderstandings the author raises are connected. You see, if there really was scientific evidence to support Intelligent Design, as he says, they would submit it for peer review at scientific journals to convince their peers of the validity of their ideas. In other words they would be doing science. But the IDers aren’t interested in science: they have already made their minds up, regardless of the evidence.
An example from a different area illustrates the case. When the theory of continental drift was first introduced, it was treated with enormous skepticism. But those who supported the idea didn’t write articles in newspapers entitled “Continental drift is sorely misunderstood”. They did what real scientist do: they looked for evidence and presented it to their peers. Eventually continental drift (in the form of plate tectonics) became widely accepted and today it is found in most high school science texts, not because the President had said in an interview that alternatives to conventional geology should be taught, but because the weight of evidence convinced the scientific community that it was correct.
If Intelligent Design proponents followed and passed this peer review process, ID would be taught in schools as science the way plate tectonics is taught now (despite the claim in this article that this is not their objective). Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classes precisely because its proponents have not followed this process.
Good job debunking that moron, per the usual.
Nothing infuriates me more than Intelligent Design proponents calling their faith "science".
I'll never forget watching the so-called debate between Kent Hovind and Dr. Shermer. Hovind actually said evolution is not science. Idiot...wait, is that an "ad hominem" TSK, or do I need to provide links proving evolution happened?
Posted by: Rockstar | August 11, 2005 at 06:31 AM
That's a good point: if it were a science, they'd submit evidence for across-the-board peer review.
No doubt there's a biased Journal Of Intelligent Design in the works (if not already out there).
Posted by: beajerry | August 11, 2005 at 08:14 AM
I believe Intelligent Design goes beyond the argument of 'fallen angel vs. risen ape' because it allows us the freedom to believe in a supernatural.
Posted by: rik | August 11, 2005 at 12:39 PM
I wouldn't object at all to ID being taught in high schools, so long as they taught the truth about it:
"Intelligent Design is a fringe theory that has virtually no support among practicing scientists. Among scientists, ID is widely considered not even to be a valid scientific theory, because it fails to make strong predictions that can be used to devise observational or experimental tests of ID."
But of course, this would never be acceptable to ID proponents, who want ID given "equal time" with evolution, despite the fact that it has negligible support among actual scientists. Fundamentally, ID is a public relations campaign designed to create the public impression that evolution is somehow in trouble, and that "design theory is supported by a growing number of scientists in scientific journals, conference proceedings and books." Of course, real biologists who read scientific journal and books and attend scientific conferences know that this is completely untrue.
Posted by: trrll | August 11, 2005 at 03:59 PM
"Intelligent Design" isn't good science - it isn't even bad science. It is just religious dogma dressed up in a labcoat.
If it is a scientific hypothesis (it can't be a theory, since it has never been tested), what experiment can be done to test its predictions? What are its predictions? It has none that I can see.
Prometheus
Posted by: Prometheus | August 11, 2005 at 09:08 PM
My first post to Skeptico...
ID is religion with a labcoat on, as Prometheus said. Throwing out big words, false appeals to openmindedness, and so forth doesn't make it any more credible. ID can be dismissed with three simple words: Argumentum ad ignoratium.
I keep thinking of Homestar Runner when newage woos put on the labcoat: http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail98.html
Click on the cheatcake at the end for an excellent example of a poisoning the well fallacy reminiscent of some Creationist arguments.
Posted by: BronzeDog | August 12, 2005 at 07:48 AM
Intelligent Design, as a conceptualization, is a stroke of genius. It strips Creationism from its emotional-based (bias) mythology.
It seems that all of science is, in fact, a form of ID because without having discovered the laws of physics any scientific inquiry would continually discover a pervasive chaos (which hasn't happened).
ID, without a personalized conception of "Creator" (a blue-eyed white guy implying white supremacy) is a giant leap forward towards comprehending the obvious.
Logically, without ID, we are left with no basis for scientific research because the alternative is "chaos" as the exclusive scientific cosmology.
For the most part, all of Man's scientific exploration (aside from some technological innovations) has been to discover natural laws and to attempt to control nature. The entire scientific process is a tacit approval of Intelligent Design.
Intelligence, of some sort, is present in every facet of existence. Intelligence, to some degree, is embedded and expressed in everything.
Perhaps Stanley Kubrick said it best in 2001 A Space Odyssey: we are, for the most part, monkeys throwing bones into the air. Whether they are femers or rockets we have always been attempting to discern the natural laws governing the universe. Intelligent Design is now the new name for the ancient basis of scientific research.
Otherwise, why bother?
Posted by: Raj | August 12, 2005 at 02:04 PM
The Discovery Institute (sic) uses a simple and time-tested formula. They dress in really expensive clothing, and invite people to "conferences" in expensive buildings. The local yokels who serve as senior editorial staff on both Seattle dailies are always amazed by the surroundings they find themselves in, and soon some of the most amazing tripe appears on the editorial pages.
Tripe like "scientific inference". Honestly, a guess can be good or bad, but there's nothing scientific about it until you test it in some objective manner. Which, by definition, cannot be done with the oxymoronic Intelligent Design.
Posted by: serial catowner | August 13, 2005 at 12:03 PM
Okay... Raj is just weird.
"Intelligent Design, as a conceptualization, is a stroke of genius."
It's childish. All it is is making up stuff because we (presumably) don't know the answer. Argument ad ignoratium.
"It seems that all of science is, in fact, a form of ID because without having discovered the laws of physics any scientific inquiry would continually discover a pervasive chaos (which hasn't happened)."
This hits me as a big non-sequitur, if I'm grasping his point. Just because we're using our intelligence to figure out the laws of physics doesn't mean that they were formed by an intelligence.
"Logically, without ID, we are left with no basis for scientific research because the alternative is "chaos" as the exclusive scientific cosmology."
That's simply not true. We have the scientific method as the basis of research, and we have materialism as our cosmology. If you want to call it "chaos", go ahead. Whatever emotions you assign to it are irrelevant. The truth is the truth, regardless of how you feel about it.
"The entire scientific process is a tacit approval of Intelligent Design."
Dead wrong. Science is, thus far, a complete rejection of ID. Science is about discovery. ID is about giving up and saying godidit.
"Intelligent Design is now the new name for the ancient basis of scientific research."
The ancient basis being, "making stuff up."
Posted by: BronzeDog | August 13, 2005 at 03:47 PM
Quote, from BronzeDog:
"This {referring to "It seems that all of science is, in fact, a form of ID because without having discovered the laws of physics any scientific inquiry would continually discover a pervasive chaos. which hasn't happened."}
hits me as a big non-sequitur, if I'm grasping his point. Just because we're using our intelligence to figure out the laws of physics doesn't mean that they were formed by an intelligence".
Reply: Nor does it rule out being formed by an "intelligence".
The entire scientific process is a tacit approval of Intelligent Design." comment...
Dead wrong. Science is, thus far, a complete rejection of ID. Science is about discovery. ID is about giving up and saying godidit.
Reply: Without order and reproducible scientific results the only conclusion to make is "chaos". "God" (as an item) is a western (compared with Oriental) creation.
Intelligent Design, in its pure form, has nothing to do with any concept of God or metaphysical explanations. It presumes, as a result of earlier observations, that a seeming order and intelligence (cause and effect) imbues all observable phenomena.
Many of the results of scientific discovery are designed to mimic (reproduce and/or enhance) the methods of nature (physics).
I really don't get what the difficulty is, aside from, perhaps, semantics.
Posted by: Raj | August 13, 2005 at 11:37 PM
"Nor does it rule out being formed by an "intelligence"."
Reply: No, but it doesn't support it. Until you come up with some way to test for that intelligence, Occum's razor shaves it off.
"Without order and reproducible scientific results the only conclusion to make is "chaos"."
Reply: Which is completely irrelevant to what's being discussed: We live in a universe with order. There's no need to go into an inconsistent region of the land of "What If"
"Intelligent Design, in its pure form, has nothing to do with any concept of God or metaphysical explanations. It presumes, as a result of earlier observations, that a seeming order and intelligence (cause and effect) imbues all observable phenomena."
Reply: Order, yes. Intelligence, no. I have yet to hear of an observation that supports the idea of an intelligence designing the universe.
"Many of the results of scientific discovery are designed to mimic (reproduce and/or enhance) the methods of nature (physics)."
Irrelevant.
Posted by: | August 14, 2005 at 05:18 PM
An editorial cartoon from what serial catowner called "The local yokels who serve as senior editorial staff on both Seattle dailies":
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1247
Posted by: HCN | August 14, 2005 at 05:20 PM
HCN said, Order, yes. Intelligence, no.
I have yet to hear of an observation that supports the idea of an intelligence designing the universe.
Reply: a non-sequitur ? There is order but no intelligence, therefore, because I have not heard about it, then it does not exist?
Excuse me, but, isn't "order" one of the indicators of "intelligence"? Does not the presence of order suggest intelligence? Is it worth investigation? Or is it "intelligent" to ignore it?
And how did you leap from the comment "intelligence (cause and effect) imbues all observable phenomena." to "an intelligence designing the universe"?
The universe is not an "observable phenomena" because of its vastness we can only observe it incrementally. It does not even have to be the same "intelligence" (a unity).
Regarding the "irrelevance" of "Many of the results of scientific discovery are designed to mimic (reproduce and/or enhance) the methods of nature (physics)."
Why would Man want to mimic the lack of intelligence? WE are investigating, decoding and learning. From what?
Posted by: Raj | August 14, 2005 at 08:34 PM
Raj:
Re: Excuse me, but, isn't "order" one of the indicators of "intelligence"?
How do you explain snowflakes?
Re: WE are investigating, decoding and learning. From what?
How did the designing intelligence come about? From what?
Posted by: Skeptico | August 14, 2005 at 09:06 PM
Raj attempts to quote me:
"HCN said, Order, yes. Intelligence, no. "
WHERE did I say that?
I only put in a link to a very amusing editorial cartoon! And if I was making a jab it was at "serial catowner" for asserting that the editorial staff were dazzled by the Discovery Institute's building just because one of them had a "guest editorial" written by one of the DI's employees. Sheesh!
Could you be more careful please!
(you quoted an "anonymous", so check where the lines are).
Posted by: HCN | August 14, 2005 at 09:51 PM
HCN: Raj was quoting me, thinking it was you: I accidently left my name out of my post, and yours followed immediately afterwards, so it's an understandable mistake.
"Excuse me, but, isn't "order" one of the indicators of "intelligence"? Does not the presence of order suggest intelligence? Is it worth investigation? Or is it "intelligent" to ignore it?"
Reply: We can create order with our intelligence. That doesn't mean all order was created by intelligence. If you can come up with some method of testing Intelligent Design that rules out non-intelligent explanations, it's worth investigating.
"Why would Man want to mimic the lack of intelligence? WE are investigating, decoding and learning. From what?"
We mimic some things because they're useful to us. We learn about the universe because knowledge is useful to us. We aren't mimicking the lack of intelligence: We're mimicking some useful things that crop up from what thus far appears to be a mix of random chance and physical law.
Posted by: BronzeDog | August 15, 2005 at 09:19 AM
I really like it when posters, as within this blog, show a measure of genuine respect for various opinions. It gives the readers (non-posters), at least, information and opinions from both sides of an issue.
I do apologize to HCN for the inadvertent mis-quote; an innocent mistake.
Posted by: Raj | August 16, 2005 at 02:15 PM
Thank you.
Posted by: HCN | August 16, 2005 at 06:24 PM