Intelligent Design

Author Chris Mooney made a politicized attack in today’s Seattle Post Intelligencer that intelligent design bucks the scientific method. Mooney, who is speaking in Seattle about something he calls the “Republican War on Science,” appears to not understand intelligent design theory. Mooney was quoted saying to the reporter: “Your buddies there at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, for example (an organization that favors “intelligent design” over standard evolutionary science), are not arguing about evidence that can be tested,” Mooney said. “They are attacking the entire scientific method.” (Chris Mooney, quoted in Author says GOP is waging war on scientific inquiry, by Tom Paulson) The funny thing is that whenever I hear this objection made, very rarely does the challenger provide Read More ›

A good friend of mine getting his teaching credential to teach public high school called me this weekend to converse about his professor’s response to a paper he wrote supporting the teaching of ID. Apparently his professor disapproved of teaching ID because he felt that ID was untestable science. The professor’s criticism went something like this: “My main problem with ID is that it purports to not identify the designer when everyone knows it’s really just God. Intelligent design thus shouldn’t be taught because it is essentially creation science repackaged. Thus, it’s just an untestable appeal to the supernatural. However, if I had to choose, I would actually prefer creation science to ID because at least creation scientists are up-front Read More ›

Something called “intelligent design” is the “number one” discussed topic on the internet today (August 4, ’05), according to the web and blog watch group Technocrati.com. But what do people mean by the topic? Forget the old fashioned question — what do the scientists propounding ID mean by the term? This is the post-modern age. What do YOU want ID to mean?

Hermann Rorschach (1884-1922) invented the famous Rorschach test that long was used to see what different meanings people would project onto a series of abstract inkblots. I see a butterfly, you see a porter carrying water, the man down the hall sees a spy plane. Supposedly, it was a key to understanding personality.

Intelligent design, I am afraid, is in danger of becoming a contemporary Rorschach test. Everyone in the media and all those bloggers seems to have his own interpretation of ID and each and every opiner thinks he really knows exactly what he is talking about.

Update, 10:02am, 8.4: Technorati now shows intelligent design as the number one search term, and the number of bloggers weighing in is growing. The issue indeed has reached a new, fevered, pitch. It doesn’t hurt to have the leader of the free world asked what he thinks of your research. The recent comments by President Bush about teaching evolution have made ‘intelligent design’ all but a household phrase. Technorati.com is reporting that there are currently over 17,000 blog posts about intelligent design, making it the #7 most popular search term on their site at the moment. Media coverage of the debate over evolution is certain to escalate in the near future.

The Washington Post printed Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman’s short op-ed in today’s “Free For All” section of the Post.

A: As many as they can build! Apparently having such websites at a multitude of universities, and having all manner of self-elected guardians of Darwin’s holy theory put up such websites, and having every biology professor and graduate student blogging the value of Darwinism isn’t doing much to convince people to believe in the fact of Darwinian evolution. The brights at the National Acadamies are throwing more money into marketing, instead of into new product development. The answer they arrived at is that there aren’t enough websites to convince people, so make more. Here’s a new one. Wired magazine briefly reported this in an obvious attempt to solidify its claim as the hip new mouthpiece of the Darwinian elite. Getting Read More ›

The Washington Post today publishes an editorial prepared by Anne Applebaum (“Dissing Darwin“) that uses the term “intelligent creator” three times to describe the concept of intelligent design. The writer knows better, but apparently believes that if she can lodge the word “creator” (as in “creationist”) in people’s minds, it will reside there forever. The key to understanding such writing: the proponents of intelligent design must never be allowed to speak for themselves or define their own ideas. Instead they must only be spoken about and accept definitions of their terms that are offered by their foes. The editorial also twice describes the film The Privileged Planet as “religious”, though the writer admits it doesn’t mention the word God. (It Read More ›

John Hanna of the Associated Press has a very good, balanced and straightforward look at Kansas’ upcoming hearings over evolution and education, in today’s Kansas City Star.

In the article Hanna looks honestly at the debate, identifies the people testifying as predominately supporters of ID, but goes on to explain that they are not calling for ID to be put in the classroom, but instead want to teach more about the scientific criticisms of Darwinism.

CSC senior fellow David Berlinski recently sent me the following comments about science writer Dr. Susan Blackmore’s adoration of the inevitability of natural selection.