Les Jones: Why I Don't Worry About Intelligent Design

February 09, 2005

Science > Why I Don't Worry About Intelligent Design

I haven't given any time to the Intelligent Design flapdoodle. It's not that I don't have an opinion - I'm a Darwinist through and through. It's just that I've read lots of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins and between the two of them I've not only seen the arguments, I've seen these debates unfold over the course of two decades. Experience tells me that in the U.S. the evolutionists always win, so I rarely bother to even get indignant about people trying to keep evolution out of the schools, or putting warning stickers on textbooks, or trying to get creationism taught for "balance."

I don't expect Intelligent Design - which is just creationism with a fresh coat of paint - to fare any better than old-school creationism. As the latest example of why that is, consider this post at the National Review's group blog, The Corner. National Review is a conservative publication, and John Derbyshire is one of the most conservative of the bunch, but even he is unimpressed with ID arguments. Here's his opening paragraph.

First, a general remark. I like a good knock-down argument as much as the next person, but I must say, ID-ers are low-grade opponents, at least if a bulk of my e-mails are any indication. They are still banging away with the arguments I first heard when the whole thing first surfaced 10-15 yrs ago. "What use is half an eye?" "The odds against this are a trillion to one!" etc. etc. There is nothing new here. I understand why biologists get angry and frustrated with ID-ers. All the ID arguments have been patiently refuted many times over. The ID-ers response is to come back with... the same arguments.

Read the whole thing. Certainly not every Christian conservative feels the way Derbyshire does, but enough do that creationism doesn't stand a chance in this country.

UPDATE February 10: More Derbyshire posts on ID here and here. Also, it turns out Derbyshire used to take acid. That surprised me, but it didn't exactly alter my world view. Lots of people who wind up conservatives didn't start that way.

Posted by lesjones

Comments

to me it really comes down to if you belive that if somthing is complex the it must have been made by an intellegence. (on the other hand if you were really smart you would make everything as simple as possible)

Or if complex structures can self organize theirselves randomly.\

Of course i am willing to make a bet with any one for their soul. Any takers?

Posted by: cube at February 08, 2005

ID will never matter in the world of science, because rationality and facts are the currency of science. The currency of politics, however, is power, and the irrational are winning lots of arguments simply by virtue of yelling louder and longer than anyone trying to make sense.

Whether ID should be taught in our schools may end up having little effect on whether it does get taught, so your complacency seems naive.

Posted by: hellbent at February 09, 2005

Hellbent: Politics and not science has always been the sharp point of creationism. I've seen these things come and go for a while, and I'm confident that creationism won't be any more successful now that it's called intelligent design.

Posted by: Les Jones at February 09, 2005

I encourage all ID believers to read Just Six Numbers by Rees. It offers a real peek at the God in the Machine, such that "trillion-to-one chances" will seem like safe bets.

Posted by: Fûz at February 13, 2005