ID nitpicking – the evolution (vs) creation fracas

The WaPo published an article that started another round of buzz on the evolution problem. It seems that the simplest way to resolve the problem is often the one most missed.

Karl Popper & Intelligent Design.– Rand Simberg has a good post on Intelligent Design (ID) (tip to Instapundit) … One thing that strikes me about Intelligent Design is that it must have been much more intuitively appealing before the failure of socialism. Socialism in the 1920s–1940s was in part based on the idea that the world had become so complex that central planning was necessary to deal with this complexity. Yet Von Mises was arguing just the opposite, that as the world became more elaborate, no one could plan it. ID seems to be based on an assumption that most conservatives reject in the economic sphere–that as the economy gets more elaborate, to work well it must be the product of the intelligent design of a master planner.
[ Jim Lindgren December 27, 2004 at 10:23pm]

Interesting idea and possibly a good point, but also besides the point.

The point is that ID isn’t science–it’s a copout on science and the scientific method, and as I said in my post a couple years ago, creationists attempting to get their views into science class, whether explicitly as the 6000-year-old solution or dressed up as science, as in ID, is a failure of their own personal faith in their own beliefs. They seem to think that if science doesn’t validate their faith, then their faith is somehow thereby weakened, and that they must fight for its acceptance in that realm. [Rand Simberg. The IDers Rear Their Heads Again. Transterrestrial Musings. 27 December 2004]

Getting closer, but getting a bit personal in trying to understand the attacks on Darwin’s theories.

Instapundit and Jim Lindgren are wading in on Intelligent Design; apparently Hugh Hewitt has been commenting on it lately. Lindgren references a Rand Simberg post which states, among other things, the following (with which Lindgren agrees) …

When people are levying accusations that Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, I’d like to also hear them explain how evolution IS falsifiable. And not microevolution, which we all know happens — otherwise we’d only need one flu shot ever. How could one falsify the idea that we’ve all evolved from something like a fish, or a bacteria, etc.? I think this is even less falsifiable than Intelligent Design, as it’s rather difficult to prove that something cannot happen and it’s somewhat easier to prove that something CAN happen. [David Mobly. Intelligent design again. A Physicist’s Perspective. 28 December 2004]

This one shows an effort to deal with the dissonance between mind and heart. You can always tell when picayune detail starts to weigh in and the issue gets lost in the forest.

What constitutes science? At the very least I’d say that the scientist should have a model that makes some sort of prediction about the future. That is the scientist has a construct that is positive in that it actually gives us and indea of what to expect to see. Now, this is the basic requirement of science, IMO, and in this regard Intelligent Design (ID) fails utterly. [ Deinonychus 28 December 2004]

Another one that identifies the crucial question but does not really get into who it is that should be considered the final arbiter of the answer.

– – –
The fundamental question in not whether evolution is flawed or whether the ideas of others should be installed in a biology curriculum, it is the question of who should define the science of biology in terms of what is to be taught under that label. What does a student ‘buy’ when he or she enrolls in a biology class? Who is going to going to put the kind of value on that student’s result of a biology ‘purchase’ that schools exist to provide? i.e. What does the market for biology students say?

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.