Science and Culture Today | Page 1387 | Discovering Design in Nature

Eminent philosopher of science Elliott Sober is always worth reading. He takes ID seriously and tries to offer principled critiques–and he’s even willing, if need be, to let his critiques slice both ways.

The County Press Online newspaper has an insightful editorial pointing out that the debate over evolution has hardly been laid to rest. The 2005 Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District decision in our fair state was thought to resolve the debate that Intelligent Design is a religious movement, just a new wrinkle on Creationism. That hasn’t happened largely because Intelligent Design, or I.D., is not.

Robert Naeye at Sky & Telescope recently posted a simplistic rant against intelligent design. His logic is astoundingly bad, and his “attacks” on ID are the most elementary sort that have been rebutted too many times to mention. (But I will anyhow — go here, here, and here just to start.)

Here’s his big complaint:

Over at ARN’s ID Update David Tyler is considering the sad situation in science where ID is ruled out a priori and Darwinian explanations are ruled in. More importantly, it is good practice in science to consider multiple hypotheses and to find ways of evaluating them. One often notes arguments by Darwinians making the claim: “an intelligent designer would not do it this way”, always leading to rejection of the intelligent design hypothesis. Here is a case where there are good reasons, supported by a mathematical model, why an intelligent designer would do it that way. When any potential challenge to the Darwinian argument is excluded, are scientists hindered by limiting the scope of their research?

In 1970, Nobel laureate Jacques Monod called DNA the “secret of life” and said that the discovery of its structure and function — especially “the understanding of the random physical basis of mutation” — means that “the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded” and that humans are “a mere accident.”[¹]

Recently I received a thoughtful e-mail asking questions about Discovery Institute. A slightly modified and adapted version of my reply is below: Question (1): “Does the DI have any religious affiliation? (My understanding is DI is specifically neutral on religion and open to all scientific teaching and research regardless where the evidence leads)“ You’re basically correct–this question is answered on our website at “Top Questions“: Is Discovery Institute a religious organization? Discovery Institute is a secular think tank, and its Board members and Fellows represent a variety of religious traditions, including mainline Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, and agnostic. Until recently, the Chairman of Discovery’s Board of Directors was former Congressman John Miller, who is Jewish. Although it is Read More ›

This is the final installment of a four-part series responding to Larry Arnhart’s comments about my book, Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest. The first three installments can be found here, here and here.

5. Darwinism and Economic Liberty

Arnhart contends that Darwinian theory supports economic freedom, but in my book I argue that efforts to apply Darwinism to economics are misleading and based on false analogies. In particular, I criticize the claim that F.A. Hayek’s idea of “spontaneous order” is in any important sense analogous to Darwin’s idea of unguided evolution. I also dispute the claim that “spontaneous order,” properly understood, is incompatible with intelligent design. I further point out that in the history of ideas, Darwinism has been used much more often to stigmatize capitalism than to support it.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is currently running a refreshing op-ed piece entitled, “Why Can’t We Discuss Intelligent Design?,” by J. Scott Turner, arguing for open discussion of ID on university campuses. The twist: Dr. Turner is a an associate professor of biology at the State University of New York’s College of Environmental Science and Forestry who thinks intelligent design is “wrongheaded,” but nevertheless deserves to be discussed in academia.

Samuel Chen and William Dembski are discussing a talk given by Donald Wise at the Geological Society for America conference in October, 2005, where Wise recommended that Darwinists use dysteleological arguments against ID rather than discussing science. Wise stated in his talk abstract that Darwinists contending against ID should not go “off-message with debates on origins of life” but should “pound simple themes of obvious design failures.” Basically, Wise recommended that they avoid discussing relevant scientific questions and instead raise fallacious and irrelevant theological objections to ID, which have nothing to do with ID and to which religions have had answers for millennia. But then again, Wise was not interested in addressing the scientific issues, as his talk’s abstract suggested, Read More ›

After posting about the law review article in the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion which argued that Judge Jones went too far, I was sent an unsolicited e-mail by someone I’ll call SGB with the subject, “Intelligent Design is Not Science.” The e-mail was sent as a letter to the Editor-In-Chief and Managing Editor of the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, apparently intended for public consumption. I was cc’d on it, along with Richard Dawkins and Glenn Branch (of the NCSE). It’s a long letter, which largely misunderstands ID and Mr. Italiano’s legal arguments. But SGB’s conclusion was most interesting: In a book titled “The God Delusion”, author Richard Dawkins considers “the God Hypothesis.” He defines the God Read More ›