Intelligent Design at work

[Miker]

The good people of Dover, Penn., are in court this week fighting for their right to tell high-school students that evolution is an elective, not a requirement. Intelligent design isn't just your great-grandpa's creationism, they contend. Instead, it fills in the myriad "gaps" and "problems" in Darwin's theory of evolution with an unnamed, omnipotent "designer." (Hint: His name rhymes with "Todd.") For this exceedingly pluralistic and tolerant worldview, Dover School Board members have gotten themselves into a world of trouble with parents, the ACLU, and pundits across the land.

But the critics are missing the beauty of this new theory. Because the really great thing about intelligent design is that it takes all the awkward uncertainty out of science. It says, "You know those damn theoretical gaps and conundrums that send microbiology graduate students into dank basement laboratories at 3 a.m.? They don't need to be resolved at all. Go back to bed, sleepy little grad students. God fills those gaps."

Let's face it: The problem with science has always been that each new discovery unleashes thousands of new questions and ambiguities. So really, the more we discover new stuff, the stupider we get. Clearly, that isn't working. ID says we shouldn't bother ourselves with resolving scientific inconsistencies or untangling puzzles. We should recognize that what God really wants is for us just to stop learning.

Think of the applications. Science is, after all, teeming with unresolved conundrums. What if we just recognized, for instance, that we can't make the Standard Model of particle physics work? This theory, which purports to describe all known matter—including subatomic particles, such as quarks and leptons, as well as the forces by which they interact—is plagued by scientists' failure to observe something called "proton decay." Now, if we apply the ID principle to particle physics, no one ever needs to put on a lab coat again. Quarks and leptons? They're made of God.

And so are quartz and leprechauns.

There are many thorny medical mysteries doctors can't explain: How can pluripotent stem cells give rise to any type of cell in the body? Why is the genetic marker for Huntington's disease characterized by an excess of trinucleotide repeats? What accounts for the phenomenon of spontaneous remission in some cancers? With intelligent design, we don't ever need to find out. Years from now, we'll all lie in our hospital beds while ID-trained doctors hold our hands and assure us that we are merely dying of God.

We'll all be able to huddle around our radios and listen to Car Talk as a family. After the question is posed, we can all yell out in unison with Click and Clack that the mysterious drut-drut-drut coming from that lady in Vermont's carburetor is … "God!!"

And Law & Order: Special Victim's Unit will be vastly improved when Mariska Hargitay can look ruefully over at Chris Meloni, shake her head over the dead victim's limp frame, and shrug: "Heck if I know what happened. It's a real mystery. I guess we'll have to get a warrant for God." Sigh. "Again." Cut to closing credits.

Replacing every single gap in human knowledge with a theory of divine agency would save us billions of dollars in wasteful public education. In fact, while we're at it, replacing every single Gap store with a God store would save us billions of dollars on flat-front chinos.

My modest proposal would be that, instead of using intelligent design merely to fill in the gaps and inconsistencies of our most intractable scientific puzzles, we roll back what we've already learned about science and plug God into the equation at the outset. Kind of cut out those annoying scientific middlemen. That apple didn't fall onto Sir Isaac Newton's head because of gravity. It was God. God didn't want Newton to study science, and he doesn't want us to, either. And I, for one, am relieved. As Galileo(not ours) famously said, and Teen Talk Barbie famously paraphrased: "Science is hard."

[Shankerr]

haha thats great! Where did ya find that anyway?

[Wierz]

Replacing every single gap in human knowledge with a theory of divine agency would save us billions of dollars in wasteful public education. In fact, while we're at it, replacing every single Gap store with a God store would save us billions of dollars on flat-front chinos.

I almost DIED when I read this. Thanks man, I needed a good laugh - today's been a crappy Friday so far.

[MixmasterNash]

I like Mariska!

[Guido]

Sounds like a Dave Barry article. Am I right?

[ShockBoxer]

That's a very common perception of Intelligent Design ... and I don't deny there's a significant portion of our number who are using it to thump their bibles. It's not the whole of it, though.

First statement: I believe in evolution.

The differences lie between micro-evolution (change within a species, which ID supports) and macro-evolution (the true origin of a species).

Micro-evolution is beyond refute. We see and observe cockroaches becoming resistant to toxins, germs and bacteria becoming resistant to medications, even people adapting to their environment. It is tangible, it is measureable, it is observable.

Macro-evolution is the gray area. Based on micro-evolution it's not an irrational leap to assume that things started small and micro-evolved enough to split and macro-evolve into different species. Yet when you think about this it seems as magical as "And on the seventh day He rested". How many species on earth are there?

Where are the 'new' ones that should have materialized via micro-evolution? Why haven't monkey evolved in 10,000 years? Why haven't bees in 2 million years? Why haven't certain strains of shark in that long? Why haven't humans split into different species (not the same as races)? Our conditions have changed as much as the dinosaurs did... more, even, since we weathered at least one ice age.

The theory proposed is that there's only a certain amount of variance available to each species. Humans evolved from a human template because today's monkeys were busy evolving from a monkey template. Whales of today evolved from ancient whales. Etc.

No fossil records have been found to declare 'behold dino-bird... half dinosaur, half bird.' Recently there was one that looked awful damn conclusive, and that's why it was such a big deal (potentially a death blow for the Intelligent Design theory).

Macro-evolution hasn't been measured. It hasn't been observed. It is a THEORY based on what is known and observed. The few new species we have, such as mules, are the result of hybrids... not changes over time.

Perhaps a more logical theory than a flying spaghetti monster dropping puppies from the sky wholesale. A lot more logical than the flying spaghetti monster, really, but until conclusive proof is discovered (impossible without time travel, ultimately) it is no more PROVEN.

I'm not religious. This does not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design for me. DNA is way too orderly. If WE can now create life because of our understanding of it why could SOMETHING not have done the same on earth, millions of years ago?

Statement Two: I do not believe in God, though I quite often take his name in vain.

So there. If I end up in a Hell I don't believe in I'll have a long time to reconsider this stance.

Statement Three: Intelligent Design should not replace SQUAT.

It's an alternate theory, no more, no less. Without alternate theories MANY sciences would have faltered. Is biology one of them? Maybe not. Micro-evolution is where it's at, really.

Both theories need to produce a body to become the Truth.

Statement Four: I do not give serious thought to alien progenitors on a regular basis. I am, however, a fan of David Brynn and Arthur C Clarke.. both of which address this possibility. Good science fiction is based in science possibility, not science probability (look at how popular faster than light and time travel are in science fiction).

[Wierz]

Micro-evolution is beyond refute. We see and observe cockroaches becoming resistant to toxins, germs and bacteria becoming resistant to medications, even people adapting to their environment. It is tangible, it is measureable, it is observable.

Macro-evolution is the gray area. Based on micro-evolution it's not an irrational leap to assume that things started small and micro-evolved enough to split and macro-evolve into different species. Yet when you think about this it seems as magical as "And on the seventh day He rested". How many species on earth are there?

You had some good points but I wanted to bring this up. "Modern" (and I use the term losely because it is always changing) scientific observation has only been around for a tiny fraction of time in comparison to the amount of time "life" is believed to have existed on Earth. Therefore, there just isn't any hard scientific evidence to prove/disprove any theory on creation/evolution on a large scale. When scientific observation has been around for say, 15,000 years, then maybe we can start prove/disprove things like this (if we survive that long heh) - and even then, what is 15,000 years compared to billions and billions?

And when you say bees haven't evolved for 2 million years, mabye it's because they didn't have to? From what I understood, one of the largest factors in evolution is environmental. Maybe there haven't been any large enough environmental stresses on the whole of the bee population that would make evolving necessary.

Statement Four: I do not give serious thought to alien progenitors on a regular basis. I am, however, a fan of David Brynn and Arthur C Clarke.. both of which address this possibility. Good science fiction is based in science possibility, not science probability (look at how popular faster than light and time travel are in science fiction).

This is a really cool idea though, and as we get more and more advanced, something like this seems more and more possible.

[Meat_Head]

Science pwnz God

[PowerManDL]

That's a very common perception of Intelligent Design ... and I don't deny there's a significant portion of our number who are using it to thump their bibles. It's not the whole of it, though.

First statement: I believe in evolution.

The differences lie between micro-evolution (change within a species, which ID supports) and macro-evolution (the true origin of a species).

Micro-evolution is beyond refute. We see and observe cockroaches becoming resistant to toxins, germs and bacteria becoming resistant to medications, even people adapting to their environment. It is tangible, it is measureable, it is observable.

Macro-evolution is the gray area. Based on micro-evolution it's not an irrational leap to assume that things started small and micro-evolved enough to split and macro-evolve into different species. Yet when you think about this it seems as magical as "And on the seventh day He rested". How many species on earth are there?

Where are the 'new' ones that should have materialized via micro-evolution? Why haven't monkey evolved in 10,000 years? Why haven't bees in 2 million years? Why haven't certain strains of shark in that long? Why haven't humans split into different species (not the same as races)? Our conditions have changed as much as the dinosaurs did... more, even, since we weathered at least one ice age.

Macroevolution follows implicitly from microevolution given enough time.

Evolution is nothing more than the process of adaptation to stimulus in a population. If there's no environmental stimulus to force change, then you're going to see very little drift in a species over time.

The theory proposed is that there's only a certain amount of variance available to each species. Humans evolved from a human template because today's monkeys were busy evolving from a monkey template. Whales of today evolved from ancient whales. Etc.

If you or anyone else can postulate a biological mechanism that would limit variance in a population, I'd love to see it.

What's bad about this is that it's actually not far from the truth, yet the interpretation is very wrong. The current lines of evolution have been laid down for quite a long time now, but the origin of those lines was certainly not divine.

Macro-evolution hasn't been measured. It hasn't been observed. It is a THEORY based on what is known and observed. The few new species we have, such as mules, are the result of hybrids... not changes over time.

How would you propose to observe something that, by very definition, requires many thousands or millions of years to occur? Mr. Peabody and the Wayback Machine are busy at the moment.

Also, you just contradicted yourself -- a theory based on what is known and observed is, for all intents and purposes, correct if there are no glaring holes that make it non-viable.

Putting it another way-- we can observe directly that such things did happen through the fossil record, knowledge of genetics and biology, and so on. Can we directly observe an Intelligent Designer, or any evidence of said being's existence, barring the non-sequitur of life = creator?

Perhaps a more logical theory than a flying spaghetti monster dropping puppies from the sky wholesale. A lot more logical than the flying spaghetti monster, really, but until conclusive proof is discovered (impossible without time travel, ultimately) it is no more PROVEN.

You can't ever prove or disprove anything. All you can show is likelyhood based on observation, and frankly the ID position rests on a very weak argument. The simple matter is, even if evolution is "wrong" (it's not), that doesn't automatically validate ID. Unfortunately, that's how most IDers see things.

To further condemn their already weak position, they invoke the double standard of requiring "science" to rigorously and meticulously prove each and every tiny point before accepting it as truth, while simultaneously showing no such thing in regards to their side. Shady arguing, at best.

I'm not religious. This does not rule out the possibility of Intelligent Design for me. DNA is way too orderly. If WE can now create life because of our understanding of it why could SOMETHING not have done the same on earth, millions of years ago?

Because there's no evidence for such a thing occuring, and there's a handy little tool in science called Occam's razor.

Statement Three: Intelligent Design should not replace SQUAT.

It's an alternate theory, no more, no less. Without alternate theories MANY sciences would have faltered. Is biology one of them? Maybe not. Micro-evolution is where it's at, really.

ID isn't a theory. It makes no testable assertions, and in fact only states a belief. To call it a theory is to insult theories.

Both theories need to produce a body to become the Truth.

See above. Science is truth because science is nothing more than observation of phenomena.

[ShockBoxer]

Therefore, there just isn't any hard scientific evidence to prove/disprove any theory on creation/evolution on a large scale.

Bingo.

That's the heart of our (the non-bible thumping IDists) arguement. For us it's not the fact that you're defying God's place in creation (to each their own) it's that you are actively promoting one theory without acknowledging the possibilities of others. That said, I don't particularly believe it should be taught in school. To me it's an intellectual excercise (and a flight of fancy), nothing more.

As for the bible thumpers... well...

Science pwnz God

Word.

[sCaRz*Of*PaiN]

Science pwnz God

But wouldn't God be the ultimate scientist?

[TwiloMike]

Are IDers willing to entertain many possibilities other than evolution or only one? That's the basic litmus test to whether the pushing of ID is a religious or scientific excercise. Most, if not all, IDers I know shudder at the thought of anything other than G.O.D. being presented as an alternative to evolution.

[ShockBoxer]

As for PowermanDL... Can't argue with anything he says. There's a better chance of finding the 'missing link' than the intelligent designer giving a call and saying 'Hey, what's up? Just doing a 5 million year check up and... woah! Love what you've done with the place.' and indeed the simplest solution is most often the best.

ID will be completely trashed in this court hearing and go back to being a wild notion employed in science fiction rather than a vessel for the return of 'Todd' to the classroom.

[PowerManDL]

The big problem with it is that it doesn't explain anything. What the Creationists/IDers regularly fail to take into account is that even the Creator/Designer would require it's own origin, which is yet another example of their almost schizophrenic denial of basic logic.

If all things require a creator/designer/prime mover, then *there can be no un-created Creator*

[Wierz]

But wouldn't God be the ultimate scientist?

Maybe.. but what would that make us? His bad batch of crack? We be the bad batch that be killin' the fiends, yo.

[ShockBoxer]

Are IDers willing to entertain many possibilities other than evolution or only one? That's the basic litmus test to whether the pushing of ID is a religious or scientific excercise. Most, if not all, IDers I know shudder at the thought of anything other than G.O.D. being presented as an alternative to evolution.

Well, I am. To me it's all about thinking outside the box. The more whacked out ideas, as long as they have a base I can buy, the better.

As for the people who went to court over it or any ID biologist... *shrug* damned if I know (or care).

[Wierz]

I believe in a creator. Whether that creator is some alien race or some divine thing, I'm sure I'll never f'ing know nor would I be important enough to convince other people otherwise. I try to cover all my bases so I don't go to hell, if there is one heh.

I think of it as the Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man. He's all happy and smiley but if you piss him off he'll get all frowny and wreck your ****.

[sCaRz*Of*PaiN]

I think of it as the Stay-Puft Marshmellow Man. He's all happy and smiley but if you piss him off he'll get all frowny and wreck your ****.

And if you shoot him with squiggly laser guns he'll explode into creamy marshmallow goodness all over your city.

[spencerjrus]

The good people of Dover, Penn., are in court this week fighting for their right to tell high-school students that evolution is an elective, not a requirement. Intelligent design isn't just your great-grandpa's creationism, they contend. Instead, it fills in the myriad "gaps" and "problems" in Darwin's theory of evolution with an unnamed, omnipotent "designer." (Hint: His name rhymes with "Todd.") For this exceedingly pluralistic and tolerant worldview, Dover School Board members have gotten themselves into a world of trouble with parents, the ACLU, and pundits across the land.

But the critics are missing the beauty of this new theory. Because the really great thing about intelligent design is that it takes all the awkward uncertainty out of science. It says, "You know those damn theoretical gaps and conundrums that send microbiology graduate students into dank basement laboratories at 3 a.m.? They don't need to be resolved at all. Go back to bed, sleepy little grad students. God fills those gaps."

Let's face it: The problem with science has always been that each new discovery unleashes thousands of new questions and ambiguities. So really, the more we discover new stuff, the stupider we get. Clearly, that isn't working. ID says we shouldn't bother ourselves with resolving scientific inconsistencies or untangling puzzles. We should recognize that what God really wants is for us just to stop learning.

Think of the applications. Science is, after all, teeming with unresolved conundrums. What if we just recognized, for instance, that we can't make the Standard Model of particle physics work? This theory, which purports to describe all known matter—including subatomic particles, such as quarks and leptons, as well as the forces by which they interact—is plagued by scientists' failure to observe something called "proton decay." Now, if we apply the ID principle to particle physics, no one ever needs to put on a lab coat again. Quarks and leptons? They're made of God.

And so are quartz and leprechauns.

There are many thorny medical mysteries doctors can't explain: How can pluripotent stem cells give rise to any type of cell in the body? Why is the genetic marker for Huntington's disease characterized by an excess of trinucleotide repeats? What accounts for the phenomenon of spontaneous remission in some cancers? With intelligent design, we don't ever need to find out. Years from now, we'll all lie in our hospital beds while ID-trained doctors hold our hands and assure us that we are merely dying of God.

We'll all be able to huddle around our radios and listen to Car Talk as a family. After the question is posed, we can all yell out in unison with Click and Clack that the mysterious drut-drut-drut coming from that lady in Vermont's carburetor is … "God!!"

And Law & Order: Special Victim's Unit will be vastly improved when Mariska Hargitay can look ruefully over at Chris Meloni, shake her head over the dead victim's limp frame, and shrug: "Heck if I know what happened. It's a real mystery. I guess we'll have to get a warrant for God." Sigh. "Again." Cut to closing credits.

Replacing every single gap in human knowledge with a theory of divine agency would save us billions of dollars in wasteful public education. In fact, while we're at it, replacing every single Gap store with a God store would save us billions of dollars on flat-front chinos.

My modest proposal would be that, instead of using intelligent design merely to fill in the gaps and inconsistencies of our most intractable scientific puzzles, we roll back what we've already learned about science and plug God into the equation at the outset. Kind of cut out those annoying scientific middlemen. That apple didn't fall onto Sir Isaac Newton's head because of gravity. It was God. God didn't want Newton to study science, and he doesn't want us to, either. And I, for one, am relieved. As Galileo(not ours) famously said, and Teen Talk Barbie famously paraphrased: "Science is hard."

Wow, thats really clever. The only problem with ideas like this is the simple fact that there is a HUGE amount of the physical universe that science is no better equipped to explain than religion, and thats whats really sad.


It's just like in grade school, only a ****** would tease another kid for not knowing an answer if he himself was also unaware, because obviously someone is going to ask you to demonstrate that knowledge, so far science has not seemed to be bothered by this problem. (ignorance, laziness, i dont know?)

[MixmasterNash]

Wow, thats really clever. The only problem with ideas like this is the simple fact that there is a HUGE amount of the physical universe that science is no better equipped to explain than religion, and thats whats really sad.

Wrong. Science is, by definition, prepared to handle any evidence of aything, because it posits nothing. It is only a process.

Religion, on the other hand, is ill prepared to handle any evidence of any thing. Because evidence is proof of something, and when that proof runs counter to belief, it, again by definition, denies faith.

I can't wait for the day we find micro-organisms on Mars or some non-carbon based intelligence. What do you think will handle that better, science or religion?

[Alex.V]

there is a HUGE amount of the physical universe that science is no better equipped to explain than religion, and thats whats really sad.

I love these aphorisms that have no real backing.

Something that science can't explain? Enlighten me. And don't give examples of things science hasn't explained yet... rather, show me something that the scientific method simply cannot EVER explain.

[TwiloMike]

Wow, thats really clever. The only problem with ideas like this is the simple fact that there is a HUGE amount of the physical universe that science is no better equipped to explain than religion, and thats whats really sad.

The problem with ID, not science, is that it doesn't even attempt to answer questions based on rigorous scientific methods, instead pointing a finger at X and exclaiming, "Dude, X did it!" ("dude" is optional)

That science hasn't answered all questions isn't a sign of science's weakness/uselessness, or ID's importance or correctness, but that it takes time to discover.

It's just like in grade school, only a ****** would tease another kid for not knowing an answer if he himself was also unaware, because obviously someone is going to ask you to demonstrate that knowledge, so far science has not seemed to be bothered by this problem. (ignorance, laziness, i dont know?)

I don't see anyone teasing anyone for not knowing the answer. The teasing, if you want to call it that, is directed by the kid who is trying to get a clue at the kid who is content resigning inquiry.

edit: damn spelling.

[d'Anconia]

Where are the 'new' ones that should have materialized via micro-evolution? Why haven't monkey evolved in 10,000 years? Why haven't bees in 2 million years? Why haven't certain strains of shark in that long? Why haven't humans split into different species (not the same as races)? Our conditions have changed as much as the dinosaurs did... more, even, since we weathered at least one ice age.

Monkeys have evolved in 10,000 years, just not much. 10,000 years is nothing in the process of evolution.

Who said bees haven't evolved in 2 million years? Were you around 2 million years ago?

And humans haven't split into different species because up until recently humans have lived near each other (I don't know, probably Africa) and that small amount of time since then has not allowed for enough evolution to occur. It has allowed for quite a bit of variance in our phenotypes though.

The funny thing about evolution is that it is probably the one idea that really lacks true flaws. For every question you could raise about evolution there is probably a good response that still favors evolution.

[PowerManDL]

I love these aphorisms that have no real backing.

Something that science can't explain? Enlighten me. And don't give examples of things science hasn't explained yet... rather, show me something that the scientific method simply cannot EVER explain.

How come hotdogs never fit in the bun?

And just how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[squat it all!]

i guess we'll all find out who's right once we're dead...