Screaming Hysteria

Let me just acknowledge something point blank here. I don't see eye to eye with a lot of my fellow conservative bloggers a lot of the time. Most often, I'm not very bothered by that. But on this Intelligent Design thing, I'll confess it, I'm getting a little steamed. I know I really probably shouldn't, as the macroevolutionists are firmly establishing themselves as the most intolerant kind of religious zealots to ever walk the earth, but it gets under my skin nonetheless.

What started all this, of course, was this statement by the President:

President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss “intelligent design” alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.

During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.

“I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

This suggestion that schoolchildren should be exposed to more than one theory of the origins of life, is sending a bunch of otherwise reasonable people apoplectic with rage that is, frankly, shameful. You could read this or this or this or this, but I can pretty much save you some time and boil all the screaming hysteria down thusly: "Intelligent Design is faith, not science! You can't teach faith in science class! Anybody who doesn't believe in macroevolution is stupid and deserves our ridicule!"

The most hysterical pronouncements of the Spanish Inquisitors hardly look less reasonable than the stuff I'm seeing flying around the right blogosphere today. Suspiciously absent from any of these rants is any engagement on the facts or merits of Intelligent Design - it's just all ridicule, all the time. Oh, and some profanity thrown in for extra special persuasive value. I challenge any of these macroevolutionists to find a single creationist who reacts with such bile at the questioning of their faith. This kind of rhetoric is not engaged in by people who are truly confident in the factuality of their position. Don't believe me? Go ask Howard Dean.

The reality is that science in and of itself is incapable of answering the ultimae questions of our origins, because the genesis of the human species can be neither tested nor duplicated. All we may do in the end is observe and speculate. The macroevolutionist observes the seemingly endless series of infinitely small probabilites leading to the existence of man in a stable environement, and says, "Random chance produced this." The believer in Intelligent Design views the exact same information and says, "That's impossible for me to believe. Given what I have observed, I conclude some guiding entity had a hand in this." Responds the macroevolutionist, "You're stupid!"

And that is the sum totality of the arguments I have seen today as to why ID should not be taught as an alternate theory. Mixed in with that, we have a deliberate misrepresentation of what Intelligent Design is all about - with the Macroevolutionists shouting, "They're just expecting us to believe in their faith! There's no science involved!"

Hmm. That would certainly explain this and this and this. Clearly, these people are just asking us to take a blind leap of faith into some hocus pocus religion.

Second, the ridiculous notion that ID is not science because it cannot be falsified. Let's ignore, for a moment, the fact that macroevolution involves several assumptions that are disproven by modern science (life rising from non-life, reproduction out of species, etc.) Let us further forsake the fact that the seminal work of Intelligent Design (Natural Theology) was a book that was entirely filled answering the questions of falsification that arise when considering whether an obviously designed object has a designer.

Putting aside all that, I have yet to find a single macroevolutionists who has explained to me how macroevolution is a whit more falsifiable than Intelligent Design. The reason I haven't heard this is because it's not. Presumably, it doesn't have to be, since all the "scientists" believe religiously that it's true.

I expect that two things will happen as a result of this post. One, I will be mocked by people who assume that they are smarter than I am, and have some knowledge that I'm too feeble to grasp. Second, Intelligent Design will not be engaged on the facts. Perhaps I am wrong, but I just don't have a lot of faith in the ability of religious zealots to listen to reason when their faith is under attack.

The religious zealots I'm talking about are, of course, the macroevolutionists.

UPDATE (08/02/05 21:36:00 CDT): Twice now, Mark Coffey has responded to some fairly strident rhetoric gracefully. Which is one of the reasons I like him so much. Cheers.

Comments

[Pixy Misa]

"Let's ignore, for a moment, the fact that macroevolution involves several assumptions that are disproven by modern science (life rising from non-life, reproduction out of species, etc.)"

What on earth are you talking about?

Life arising from non-life is not part of evolutionary theory at all. Evolution is the formation of new species; evolutionary theory explains how new species arise from existing ones. Non-life doesn't enter into it.

Reproduction out of species? In what way is that a problem for evolution?

"I have yet to find a single macroevolutionists who has explained to me how macroevolution is a whit more falsifiable than Intelligent Design."

Try this instead:

"I have yet to find a single macroevolutionist."

Because the division between "micro" and "macro" evolution is false. Ask an evolutionary theorist, and he'll explain how finding various types of counter-examples in the fossil record, or phylum-level discordance between genetic and fossil evidence, would destroy the whole of modern evolutionary theory.

No such evidence has ever been found, of course. Instead, every piece of evidence has served to strengthen the overall foundation of evolution - while changing out understanding of certain facets, of course.

Now, how exactly can we falsify ID? It's a theory of the gaps, claiming validity from what cannot be explained satisfactorily (an arbitrary requirement) by another theory. So long as evolutionary theory doesn't explain everything, perfectly, ID will remain the same. And even if evolution did explain everything, perfectly, ID would still be there; it would just be shown all the more clearly to be a matter of faith, having nothing to do with logic or evidence.

[Blue Neponset]

Hi Leon,

First off, I like the new layout of your blog.

Regarding ID:

If Intelligent Design is a widely accepted scientific theory why hasn't it been published in one of the leading scientific journals?

I am going to answer my own question...ID hasn't been published because it isn't a widely accepted scientific theory. Why should we teach our children something that doesn't have wide acceptance in the scientific community?

If you have a different take on why ID hasn't been published I would like to hear it.

[MachoNachos]

Blue,

All I have to say in response is, read your post again, and observe how incredibly circular your reasoning is.

Why isn't ID scientific? Because it hasn't been published.

Why hasn't it been published? Because it isn't scientific.

Leon

[Blue Neponset]

Thanks for the response Leon.

There are requirements for a study/theory/etc. to be published and ID thoery does not meet those requirements.

What other explanations can you give me for the fact that ID theory has not been published in any of the scientific journals?

[Justice]

ID theory and macroevolution are both really in the realm of philosophy, since the process by which life got to where it is today was never observed nor can be observed, and is hence not the domain of science, which is all about observation and experimentation.

If biology really wants to be about science, it would kick out macroevolution and ID theory and simply talk about biological facts and processes we have observed in action.

[Tracy]

My only reasonable response to ID is to ask if it can pass the Horta test. You ask what is the Horta test? Sure. Can ID explain a species like the Horta....you know the rock like, silicone based lifeform from Star Trek. As evolution MIGHT be able to, can ID?

All kidding aside, can ID predict? Theories generally have an ability to predict...if they make a prediction and it fails, the theory is suspect. What predictions does ID make with regard to life here and on other planets?

When there is some science to back up ID, then it might be something to consider in science teaching...so far (from what I have seen) it only suggests what evolution is missing shows that evolution is not a complete theory. If evolution does not explain a gap, suggesting that an intelligent designer stepped in to stir the pot is not a suitable "stop-gap measure."

[Mark Coffey]

I echo the sentiment of the earlier commenter about the blog layout...looks good. Thanks for the kind words; I also appreciate the fact that we can have differences of opinions on some fairly large issues, without descending into the fevered rhetorical swamps...have a great one!