Perhaps the most annoying thing about dealing with the proponents of ID is trying to get a consistent description of what they believe and what they're proposing. These days, trying to get an IDer to define his (or her) "theory" of ID is like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.
From the Discovery Institute's own web site, we have the pretty indisputable position that the theory of ID is, indeed, a theory:
1. What is the theory of intelligent design?
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection
So it's a theory. No, wait, it's not a theory, according to Michael Shermer:
Intelligent-design theory lacks, for instance, a hypothesis of the mechanics of the design, something akin to natural selection in evolution. Natural selection can and has been observed and tested, and Charles Darwin's theory has been refined.
Intelligent-design theorists admit the difference, at least among themselves. Here is ID proponent Paul Nelson, writing last year in Touchstone, a Christian magazine: "Right now, we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity' — but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
Which suggests that the proponents of ID really shouldn't be allowed to participate in any conversation regarding science until they at least get their own house in order and can agree amongst themselves what they're proposing.
But at least they can agree on one thing -- ID is not religion:
3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?
No. The intellectual roots of intelligent design theory are varied.
Or is it? Writes Shermer again:
On March 9, I debated ID scholar Stephen Meyer at Westminster College in Fulton, Mo. After two hours of debate over the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of IDT, Meyer admitted in the question-and-answer period that he thinks that the intelligent designer is the Judeo-Christian God and that suboptimal designs and deadly diseases are not examples of an unintelligent or malevolent designer, but instead were caused by "the fall" in the Garden of Eden. [William] Dembski has also told me privately that he believes the intelligent designer is the God of Abraham.
It's a theory. It's not a theory. It's not religion. Yes, it is. It's a dessert topping. It's a floor wax. Is it any wonder no one with an ounce of sense takes these wingnuts seriously?
1 comment:
Is there such a thing as a theoretically waxy religion?
Post a Comment