INDCJournal: <em><b>More ID!</em></b>

« Wish Me Luck | Main | Random IM Conversation with Goldstein, Eighteen »

November 18, 2005

More ID!

Posted by Bill

Krauthammer marshalls some fresh pain for Intelligent Design:

Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?
In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase " natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

Reminiscent of one of the Commissar's ID stemwinders, I'd say.

(Via John Cole, who is, right now, as we live and breathe, standing on his chair and doing the wave, excitedly pinching his nipples between "crests")

UPDATE: One of Cole's commenters (TM Lutas) points out:

Unfortunately, Krauthammer seems to be misstating ID, at least as Behe writes about it. That makes his column useless at getting to any sort of civilized settlement.
The fundamentals of ID as scientific theory is that irreducible complexity exists and that is incompatible with blind, random chance. That isn�t what Krauthammer is saying ID is and that�s a problem.

I'm not certain if Krauthammer is blithely misstating the theory, or whether he simply rejects the characterization of ID as non-religious. In any case, the rest of TM Lutas's comment is worth reading.

Posted by Bill at November 18, 2005 01:13 PM | TrackBack (2)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2160

Comments

And the Vatican joins in, too:
"The Vatican's chief astronomer said Friday that "intelligent design" isn't science and doesn't belong in science classrooms. . ."

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/18/D8DV0FEO0.html

Posted by: rbj at November 18, 2005 01:25 PM

Ummmmm...I thought this guy was an historian. Newton was devoutly religious, but in terms of C of E, no, he was a raging heretic. An anti-trinitarian.

I mean, ID is terrible science, but the reason for that isn't philosophical, as Krauthammer suggests. The reason it is crappy science is that its USELESS. It may be useless BECAUSE its tenuous relationship to the real world is reflected in the sort of rhetorical flourishes that Krauthammer is indulging in, but we have no guarantee that this rhetoric actually reflects anything but prejudice APART from the fact that ID is USELESS. ID qua science has been out there for about a decade in its current form, and has produced precisely squat except as a weak heuristic.

Proof of the pudding, and all that. If ID was useful, then despite all philosophical objections, biologists would be all over it. But it ain't, so theyaren't, so g'bye ID.

Posted by: poikilotherm at November 18, 2005 02:11 PM

I absolutely love Krauthammer.

Posted by: SeanH at November 18, 2005 03:05 PM

"stemwinders" I like that.

Posted by: The Commissar at November 18, 2005 03:57 PM

"irreducible complexity exists and that is incompatible with blind, random chance"

Stephen Wolfram would take issue with that. Personally, I'm into panspermia. It was ET, not Jebus that put us here. Yeah. Thats the ticket.

Posted by: John Gillnitz at November 18, 2005 05:12 PM

Behe's moving goalposts of IC show that Krauthammer's description of it as a tautological nonsense is correct.

Posted by: Robin Roberts at November 18, 2005 05:59 PM

The fact of the matter is that it is the "Intelligent Design" movement, not the "Irreducible Complexity" movement, and the theory of "Intelligent Design" is not in any way scientific.

Posted by: dorkafork at November 19, 2005 01:48 AM

I think that you've all missed the seeds of a major movement that truly should be taught in schools.

All kneel to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. As we millions of adherents to Pastafarianism are apt to proclaim, if a theory of creation has a large enough following it is the academic world's obligation to teach it right along with evolution.

Pastafarianism.com

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Posted by: Shantyhag at November 19, 2005 10:39 PM

Shantyhag, you ignorant bastard
If you knew anything about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose Noodly Appendage has touched us all, then you would know that a true believer finds "Pastafarianism" an offensive term. Pastafari do not considerm themselves to belong to the group of -isms

Once one has been touched by His Noodly Appendage, the ability to transcend isms and schisms is inherent in one's existence.

I look forward to the day that natural disasters shall diminish as Pirates once again populate the earth. Ramen

Posted by: Sum Guy at November 20, 2005 07:48 PM

Strange that these evolutionist crack-pots can find a tooth a few bone fragment a some fossels and claim that DARWIN WAS RIGHT when all they have come up with is a few insignificant evedence

Posted by: BIRDZILLA at November 20, 2005 09:42 PM

Birdzilla's right! It's asking quite a lot to expect a guy to swallow some crack-pot biology theory that's only been supported by 150 years of work in every area of biology and zoology and by every discovery to date in scientific fields that Darwin couldn't have even imagined like biochemistry and genetics. Pull the other leg you atheist, witch-doctor, bastard scientists!

Posted by: SeanH at November 21, 2005 12:56 AM

The battle against ID seems to be one of the places that crosses party divides - reaching out to liberals on this one seems like a really good idea to me. Anything that can bring the two parties in this country together, on any point, seems like a good idea.

Posted by: Joe at November 21, 2005 11:53 AM

ID's "irreducible complexity" argument is exactly wrong. Complexity is evidence of the workings of blind chance. Simplicity - as elegance - is evidence of intelligent design. At least with respect to biological organisms, the complexity and inefficiency and stupidity are enough to make any designer barf.

Mark Twain, in complaining about the Christian god, said that any vending machine designer could come up with a more humane mechanism than pain to indicate the site of injury or disease.

Posted by: ACK! at November 21, 2005 05:04 PM

Macro-evolution isn't science then, either, it's based upon pure faith. Why? Who has observed speciation? Not adaptation, speciation? No one. After millions of generations of bacteria, fruit flies, et al. we still end up with nothing more than adaptive bacteria and fruit flies. In order to BELIEVE in common ancestery you must take on faith that speciation has occurred in the past, because it has never been observed.

Posted by: mrFlood at November 22, 2005 10:02 AM

buy xanax ViaValT8898111-01-01-22

Posted by: xanax at June 16, 2006 01:36 AM

You guys are the 14270 best, thanks so much for the help.

Posted by: Caty Tota at July 13, 2006 09:53 PM

We recommend you to visit excellent full metal alchemist site. qY0ptan0x

Posted by: full metal alchemist at July 16, 2006 04:15 AM