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

[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.