Intelligent design: Devilish or Divine?

This is just the fundamentalist Christian Right's latest attempt to claim the "right" to espouse their own hard-line religious dogma in the public schools, by putting forth a poorly dressed-up pseudo-scientific assertion that "intelligent design" is an equally plausible theory, and should be therefore given equal time in the classroom.

This time around, they're trying to sidestep the hated theory of evolution by not taking it on directly, but rather claiming intelligent design to be a valid alternate explanation for SOME of the still puzzling pathways in the history of organic evolution on Earth (such as the development of the organ for sight). The reasoning goes something like, "If scientists themselves haven't been able to adequately explain these particular phenomena, than isn't it more likely that they were created by some conscious design (not necessarily the Christian God, mind you...)"

One absurdity of the "theory" results in a nonsensically circular tautology: if intelligent design proposes, as it does, that it is logically, scientifically plausible that some Sentient Something was responsible for the bulk of Creation, than what WAS this "Something," where did it come from, and who made IT?

What is most saliently revealed in all this is the inherent problems contained within an overly dogmatic world view, and the giant mess created when trying to force that dogma-map onto an incompliant reality. If fundamentalists want to share a bed with the biological sciences, someone really ought to explain the birds and bees to them first. And hand out some faith condoms, too.

Great post.

Keep it up.

Thanks Paint!

hey tom. how are you?

given the fact you call out the ever eroding FT west coast base, it seems unfortunate how strongly you brand yourself as "ex FT" - its all over your site.

if i were them i wouldnt be too happy. isn't it time to put forward a new Tom Foremski brand, and lose the FT crutch? its surely part of your past not your future.

your personal brand is strong enough.

I always admired your work because of your work. not because it its in the FT. i thought about blogging this - but then figured i would just ping you instead

James, my only point was that the FT has trouble hanging onto people once they arrive here. I'm proud of the work I did at the Financial Times, but, as you point out, that is just one part of my body of work. I am developing a Tom Foremski brand, just as any journalist is always developing their brand, and I use the fact that I am a former FT reporter to quickly tell any new readers my trustrank. The fact that I am a former FT journalist is a fact and therefore completely appropriate to use on my site; and also to distinguish me from the FT.
In today's world we share in brand building (like Hollywood :-). I helped build the FT's brand in the US and they helped build my brand internationally. The same applies for my other colleagues at the FT and other papers. Except Red Herring, where you don't know who is writing which article, it is mystery meat. Yes, Economist doesn't print bylines but it is the Economist and everyone knows who writes for it.

cheers Tom. your call of course. how long do you reckon it will be before you remove the "ex-FT" tag from your standfirst.

James, I don't know when, but I'll know it when the time comes :-)

This seems to be dangerous territory Tom - seen Scott Adams on Dilbert Blog and the resultant furore among the scientific community? And that's a guy with a sense of humour!

God did not fail when creating the universe, we messed it up just as if you had a kid if he were to break something it wouldn't be your fault. Also if evolution cn be taught in school a "theory" (more like a religion)based on random occurances and chance; which goes against science which is based on facts (that can be proven)then why can't kids learn about God, which nobody has been able to or will ever be able to prove wrong, and if kids can learn about muslims and hindus and so on why shouldn't they be able to learn about the God this country was founded on.

The reason God doesn't meddle in our affairs is because like a doting parent it loves it all.

This is one of the most common misunderstandings in relation to Intelligent Design. First of all, one must understand that to approach the issue in a manner that is scientific, we need to seperate any vested interests of any political/religious/economic parties from the actual issue.

Fallacy No. 1) Intelligent Design claims this or that about God.

Infact, Intelligent Design theory makes no comments whatsoever about God. God in itself is an ambiguous term here... the only purport of Intelligent Design theory, based on Irreducible Complexity - is that there is some INTELLIGENCE behind evolution - some planning, some design.

Suddenly does Intelligence in and off itself become synonymous with "God"?

No, whatever affiliations or emotional/political interests people may have with the implications of the findings/conclusions has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SCIENCE ITSELF.

Otherwise, you're just on an emotional rollercoaster ride, because to DISPROVE Intelligent Design theory becomes a political agenda rather than a scientific one.

As a first step, drop your preconcieved notions to as far as you can muster, then do some real research with patience, and objectivity - without throwing the morally offended card every chance you get.

People who wish to argue science should first read about the sociology and th falsification of science, in order to have a better understanding of the politics that influence science - "What is this thing called Science?" by Kuhn is a good start.