Intelligent Design ruling in PA

[tagryn]

I note a certain amount of glee and celebration by some in the wake of the PA court ruling banning the presenting of "intelligent design" as a possible alternative to Darwinian evolution in high school science classes. Since the teaching of creationism has already been struck down in the courts, this was probably a logical extension of precedent. However, I don't see this as an issue that will ultimately be resolved in the courts - until the anti-ID side can come up with a simple, elegant explanation as to why ID is impossible/invalid, the debate will go on and on. Most evolutionist counters to ID I've run across tend to become exceedingly complex and intricate, which is great for those with the time and background to delve into all the nuances but is a losing approach when it comes to changing a non-specialist's mind.

I also have to say, as someone who isn't a True Believer in either strict creationism or strict evolution, that I've sensed an general hostility by many evolutionists to considering any possible alternatives and a bad tendency to broadly paint anyone who would even entertain the thought of ID as a stupid superstitious fundamentalist who should be dismissed out of hand. Do a search for comments on Michael J. Behe, one of the more popular ID proponents, and you'll see what I mean. For a group supposedly taking up the mantle of being "reality-based" and more scientifically grounded than their opponents, this kind of dogmatic, close-minded, - and dare I say, almost Inquisitional - reaction is extremely disappointing. It appears I'm not the only one who's noticed this, either.

I'm also increasingly of the opinion that taking such a hard-core stance on evolution is often a symptom of a more general position of antitheism by its partisans. That would explain much of their zeal in fighting any consideration of ID, since its hypothesis of an "intelligent agent" would be intolerable to any believer in antitheism.

Comments

[erikred.livejournal.com]

The problem with trying to fight ID as science is that, as sciences go, it's hard not to believe that it's based in stupid superstitious fundamentalism. This is because it fundamentally misrepresents basic concepts of science like the use of the word "theory" in describing the Theory of Evolution; if they can't even get the basics right, what hope is there for anything else in their own theory?

A simple/elegant rebuttal to ID is this: It's fine theology or philosophy, but it lacks scientific rigor or a method of testing; therefore, it doesn't work as science.

[tagryn]

re: seeing ID people as stupid fundamentalists:
But OTOH its become clear to me that a *lot* of the evolution partisans are fundamentally uncompromising antitheists. I mean, you have Richard Dawkins saying "I've met plenty of people who call themselves religious, but when you actually probe, when you ask them in detail what they believe, it turns out to be this very same awe and wonder that Wilson and Einstein talked about. If they're genuinely intelligent, it does not involve the supernatural." If the movement's proponents automatically label folks ignorant and unintelligent if others have any doubts about the non-existence of God, aren't they just indulging in the same kind of intellectual laziness they like to accuse their opponents of (see original post)? And as the self-proclaimed champions of science and rationality, I hold the evolutionists to a higher standard. They *should* know better than to tar with so wide a brush, if their belief (hubris?) about being more rational and intelligent than non-believers is true.

A starting point of "theist = moron" isn't particularly useful as a persuasive position when not dealing with other antitheists, whatever the ego satisfaction of holding that belief.

Looking over the Dover statement that was to be read in the schools (see the end of the CNN article), I fail to see the harm in a simple acknowledgment that it is an issue of controversy as a philosophy of science issue. Otherwise, it becomes the elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, like talking about the abortion issue without being permitted to mention the pro-life or the pro-choice perspective. Demanding that questions be absolutely prohibited is the kind of thing that the Roman Catholic Church got criticized for in the Galileo incident (& led to Piltdown Man getting accepted as gospel for decades).

[erikred.livejournal.com]

What does it matter what the movement's proponents say about anything other than the legitimacy of teaching ID as science? What does it matter if they're theists or anti-theists? The only thing that should matter in this case is whether ID is an acceptable scientific alternative to the Theory of Evolution. And the answer is, it's not. It's a valid and fascinating _philosophical_ idea, and it has its own merits for theology. It's not science. To teach it as science is to suggest that mythology/religion can be used to explain the results of an experiment, and it's a short (albeit ridiculous) leap from there to talking about appeasing volcano gods with virgins.

Now, if you want to get into the arrogance of what you call these evolution partisans, well, hell, you're not going to get much of an argument from me. There are plenty of arrogant people in science, and I personally think the Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene is mawkishly anthrophomorphic in its portrayal of genes.

Evolution is demonstrable. The whys and wherefores of it are somewhat more elusive. It irks the hell out of me when I hear some ignorant would-be defender of evolution describing the process as a series of steps in a teleological fashion, or when I hear someone say, "Well, the eagle's eyes developed so that it could caatch more food." Rubbish! Eagles with sharper eyes caught more food and were therefore in a better place to breed, but there was no intent there, no drive to improve; if myopia had suddenly become more attractive to females, the far-sighted ones might never have passed on their genes, and we'd be lauding eagles for their preternatural propensity for needing glasses.

So, sure, if people want to debate the whys and wherefores, so be it, good. If people find evidence to suggest other methods by which critters became what they are (and the horshoe crab bears some more intense scrutiny on this matter), then good. Theory, evidence, peer review, repetition of results; these are good science.

Again, and not coincidentally, I think we're coming to similar places by different routes.

[tagryn]

The politeness, antitheism, etc. of the evolution proponents isn't relevant as to the truth or untruth of the basic argument. I'm just saying that from a P.R. perspective in trying to win converts, mixing in this other stuff into what should be a strictly scientific-merits debate isn't helping their side at all. It makes it harder to get to the crux of their case when one has to wade through what are personal biases and prejudices to reach it. That it seems to be so prevalent among evolution supporters just makes me shake my head.

But that's true of a lot of movements, most I think. The ones willing to sacrifice their time and $$$ to actively support The Cause are by definition going to be more extreme than your everyday person, who's got bigger priorities - work, family, etc. It also makes me more suspicious of True Believers(tm.), for that reason: it tends to go hand-in-hand with a lack of balance.

An aspect of the debate I find interesting is how self-awareness/intelligence is believed to have developed in humans, but not to the same degree in animals with larger brains like dolphins or whales, nor in other primates. Now, that may well get revised as we continue to gain a better understanding of animal intelligence, and heck, maybe Doug Adams was right that the dolphins are just playing dumb as a means to better observe *us*. But AFAIK the evolutionary explanation is that the brain developed as it did in humans via natural selection - the dumb ones got eaten by mammoths, for example. That's fine as an answer to "how", but going from there to state that the development of an advanced frontal lobe was just a random happening that we lucked into without any outside intervention is going beyond the evidence, and it seems like that kind of extension of evolutionary theory should be left out of high school texts if ID is to be prohibited. Either open the door to asking critical thinking/"why" questions at that level, or keep it shut.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

That's fine as an answer to "how", but going from there to state that the development of an advanced frontal lobe was just a random happening that we lucked into without any outside intervention is going beyond the evidence, and it seems like that kind of extension of evolutionary theory should be left out of high school texts if ID is to be prohibited. Either open the door to asking critical thinking/"why" questions at that level, or keep it shut.

To say we were lucky or that other species were unlucky has not been borne out; as Bruce Sterling points out in his delightful Swarm stories, intelligence is not necessarily a survival advantage for a species. If anything, statements like that are a symptom of our need to anthropomorphize the cosmos. The mathematical odds of a species developing the capacity for analytical thought and the ability to design, use, and improve tools, are really hard to work out, mostly because we don't know what factors influenced our own ability to do so; apes can use tools and solve puzzles and even learn ASL, so we may have already had that predilection in our genes. Who knows? However, it's not inaccurate to say that the process of evolution that preceded our current lump of useful gray matter was significantly complicated and could very easily have resulted in something much different. In common parlance, that's called luck.