PZ caught Kurt Vonnegut mouthing pro-ID nonsense recently. This is deeply depressing. Myers attributes it to Vonnegut getting pretty old and addled, but I'm not so sure.
Back in 1998, Vonnegut showed up at Yale University for a master's tea at my college, Silliman. I didn't think much of it at the time, but I remember him making a remark about rattlesnakes that suggested that he thought in a "design" sort of way. I don't recall precisely what Vonnegut said, or what question he was responding to. But I distinctly remember him likening rattlesnake fangs to syringes, in that they are ideally "designed" for the purpose of injection. It's precisely the sort of analogy ID proponents tend to use, in the process deceiving themselves into assuming that such metaphorical thinking actually casts light on reality qua reality.
- Log in to post comments
And HIV was designed specifically to defeat the human immune system. Of course, that begs the question regarding the identity of the designer...
There's a lot to be said about how the propagation of bad arguments (like ID) is based not only on bad logic but on bad use of language--flawed analogies, misleading metaphors, accidental or deliberate conflation of different terms, and above all, the belief that if a word has two different senses/meanings, then the meanings must be equivalent by virtue of being referred to by the same word. I haven't gotten around to reading Lakoff, but from what I understand, this is the sort of thing he focuses on, and it seems to be growing increasingly relevant, especially as issues of science and policy are forced into the realm of marketing and advertising.
I saw Vonnegut three or four years ago, and while he was still mostly sharp, it was evident that he had settled into a rhetorical routine over the years. A lot of the things he said were things he'd been saying for so long that, to his mind, they no longer particularly needed examination. It is a bit depressing to see him espousing such views, but I suppose it's not all that surprising to see a wildly successful/highly praised author becoming infatuated with an analogy or two, flawed as they may be. (Let it not be said that I don't like him, though; few people can manage dark satire as well as he did in his prime. And his prime lasted a rather long while.)
I'll admit that I'd probably defend Mr. KV if I saw him murder my dog. BUT given his long history as a secularist and his often backdoor way of making a point, I think it's worth being sceptical that he actually espoused anything regarding ID.
He was trying to explain his ideas about "tribes" and the interviewer interjected a direct question about ID in science class. If Mr. KV began his story by speaking from the point of view of someone in the ID Tribe, then saying that we are a miracle of design (which we would appear to be if "our tribe" didn't know better) doesn't mean he believes it himself.
Was it on the Dailey Show when he was going on about Bush and sounding for all the world like he supported Bush's actions? That interviewer was respectful enough to let MR. KV finish the point, which ended with a punchline that turned the entire explanation ironic. The interviewer said something about being a little worried there for a moment. If that interviewer hadn't been aware enough to let the story continue without interjecting some hot-button question, we'd have ended up thinking that Mr. KV was a Bushie.
I have to believe that if the NPR interviewer would have kept his mouth shut for a few seconds, we would have learned something about Mr. KV's thoughts on tribes and been relieved that he didn't actually support ID in science class.
A litteral use of the verb "to design" implies an intent by a designer. Our tribe is very careful these days about using that word. But just because someone from a "different tribe" uses that word in a poetic or casual way does not mean that the person doesn't believe in/understand evolution.
Our tribe points out that ID might be appropriate material for a philosophy class -- just don't teach it as science. I think Mr. KV was just pointing out that everyone thinks about how/why we came to be, and that our tribe doesn't let that sort of wondering into its science classes, but may still want to think about it elsewhere.
Anyway, the interview was awkward and I think it's possible to explain away the notion that Mr. KV espouses ID in science class. Hopefully he'll chose to explain it himself, otherwise I will continue to be seriously half bummed.
I listened to that interview yesterday. It did not seem like he was being facetious but it's hard to reconcile his statements with his storied skeptic past. Not to mention the dig at the extreme religious right. I would love to hear a longer explanation of his view.
But then again, I've never found him to be heavy on the details. He implies positions and leaves the listener/reader to ponder and draw their own conclusions, in my opinion.
I'm about half-way into reading Man Without a Country and I'm seeing now that the NPR interview was really just some soundbytes pulled from the book and not in a very compelling fashion. I haven't gotten to the design part yet but I'm wondering now if it was just some book content delivered out of context in the NPR interview. I guess I shall know soon.