« Turkey and the Headscarf | Main | Radio Discussion on Intelligent Design »
October 3, 2005
Intelligence in the Boston Globe About Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design and its proponents face a great deal of insult, mockery and ad hominem attacks nowadays. But there are saner voices out there. One good example is a recent op-ed piece in The Boston Globe by Jeff Jacoby.
Mr. Jacoby begins by pointing that the recent hype about "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" (FSM) — a cheap demagoguery to discredit ID — is completely irrelevant.
I agree. ID argues that there is a Designer and does not address the nature of that Designer, because that is scientifically undetectable. While many ID supporters, including myself, keep the personal opinion that the Designer is God — of the Bible and the Koran — such personal opinions are not a part of ID theory. FSM, on the other hand, is a fantasy about the Designer and people have the right to believe in it — if they find it really plausible. Yet theirs would be a subjective faith that has no place in the science class.
Another good point in Mr. Jacoby's article is his comment on the Scopes-trial-is-back rhetoric. Yes, it is back — but in reverse:
How things have changed. When John Scopes went on trial in Tennessee in 1925, religious fundamentalists fought to keep evolution out of the classroom because it was at odds with a literal reading of the Biblical creation story. Today, Darwinian fundamentalists fight to keep the evidence of intelligent design in the diversity of life on earth out of the classroom, because that would be at odds with a strictly materialist view of the world. Eighty years ago, the thought controllers wanted no Darwin; today's thought controllers want only Darwin. In both cases, the dominant attitude is authoritarian and closed-minded — the opposite of the liberal spirit of inquiry on which good science depends.
Mr. Jacoby's conclusion is correct, too: "[ID] isn't primitivism or Bible-thumping or flying spaghetti. It's science."
Posted by Mustafa Akyol at October 3, 2005 10:39 PM
"ID argues that there is a Designer and does not address the nature of that Designer, because that is scientifically undetectable."
Undetectable... You mean uninferable.
After all, what both sides have been busy doing is trying infer this or the other from what amounts to nil in the line of evidence.
"While many ID supporters, including myself, keep the personal opinion that the Designer is God -- of the Bible and the Koran -- such personal opinions are not a part of ID theory."
Yes. And this stance of yours (and that of the crowd you include yourself in) is naive, to say the least.
As long as the 'Designer' is floating variable in an equation defined byu someone else, you're also risking the definition of God/Allah.
"FSM, on the other hand, is a fantasy about the Designer and people have the right to believe in it -- if they find it really plausible."
Well, so is the Designer thingy... as you yourself imply (above) to fantasize that it be God/Allah.
"Yet theirs would be a subjective faith that has no place in the science class."
And... Designer analogy does have a place in science class.. How so?
Posted by: Muzmin Anonim at October 7, 2005 2:47 AM