Science

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.

The Boston Globe continues to report on the debate over evolution with nary a care for anything resembling a basic understanding of what’s being debated. Today they have an interesting interview with Discovery co-founder and senior fellow George Gilder, “The Evolution of George Gilder.”

Right out of the gate the reporter mischaracterizes the issue by giving some terrible definitions to three key terms.

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 ›

Discovery Institute advocates teaching students the controversy over Neo-Darwinism. The rebuttal is simplicity itself: “Medievalists! Naughty Luddites! Are you going teach the strengths and weaknesses of gravity? Heliocentrism? Evolution is … A … FACT!”

Here’s the transcript of the CNN debate that included Discovery Institute senior fellow Jonathan Wells, prominent evolutionist Michael Ruse, and the ICR’s John Morris. Use the search word “Tucker” to scroll down to the evolution segment.

Recent events in Kansas have given Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture an occasion to repeat its policy position concerning the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools. Now a proposed piece of legislation in New York requires another reiteration.
To restate the CSC’s policy on teaching evolutionary theory in public schools: we OPPOSE the MANDATING of intelligent design theory in public schools. Intelligent design is a promising scientific theory, but it is nonetheless an emerging theory.

A better policy would be for students to learn some of the scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory and chemical origin-of-life theories, along with the best scientific arguments favoring those respective theories. Drs. John Angus Campbell and Stephen Meyer lay out such a policy in a recent op-ed with The San Jose Mercury News (available here).

Back to New York…