Busting my balls, indeed. Check out this headline:
Intelligent design gets political
Geoff Brumfiel
Teaching creationism becomes an election issue in Michigan.
Intelligent design didn't get political in Michigan. Intelligent design is politics. Intelligent design isn't science; it's a political movement. And they sure as hell ain't offering anything new in the philosophy front (Paley is so last millennium). And my religious friends tell me that it's not even satisfying for the faithful. Intelligent design is just a well funded campaign to destroy science education. Can't get any more political than that.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It is appropriate that in the month of January, I have made so many entries about the Intelligent Design movement. January is named for Janus, the Roman god of gates, often depicted as having two faces. The more I study the ID movement, the more convinced I am that Janus is the perfect symbol for…
Given the conversation lately over the question of whether ID is creationism, I thought it would be a good idea to reprint an earlier post from January on the subject of the prevarications of ID:
It is appropriate that in the month of January, I have made so many entries about the Intelligent…
...and has spawned some press coverage, here in the Ames Tribune and here in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, making us the first state to have faculty from all Regent universities speak out against intelligent design. I'll briefly address some of the comments.
In the first article, U of I physics…
The recent unpleasant affair at the Texas Education Agency, in which the director of the science curriculum, Chris Comer, was pressured to resign, was triggered by Comer forwarding an email announcing a talk by Barbara Forrest. Forrest is a philosopher of science, and one of our leading advocates…
Speaking of intelligent design... I don't know about you, but I find the results of this poll (http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/poll?poll=160;results=1) heartening. Even at FreeRepublic, the most hyper-conservative site on the internet, only 57% of people support teaching intelligent design. I don't know about you, but I think that this indicates that evolution-as-science really transcends political boundaries (for example, see this other poll in which 81% think that the President has the power to clearly contravene the Constitution). This makes me think that perhaps the majority of the fight against evolution is a few ideologues and (still!) a massive amount of inertia.
Although you equate ID with Paley, and say there is nothing new about ID, I beg to differ.
Detecting designs in nature is what science does all the time. Attributing design that is found to intelligence, rather than time, chance and necessity, is where ID differs from other models.
I recently asked Paul W. K. Rothemund from CALTECH, the molecular biologist who made the smiley faces and world maps out of DNA, whether it is possible to scientifically detect design in what he produces. He said in is not.
Even if he finds a map of the world in DNA, he still can't scientifically detect design. Should we give up?
It seems ID is needed. Whether or not there is intelligent design in biology from the past, we need to learn to be able to detect it in biology in the future, where the human intelligent designers, like genetic engineers, will want their intellectual property protected.