The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

22 December 2005

May I see your fake ID, please?

For a topic billed as "intelligent design," it certainly generates a lot of unintelligent discussion.

McGehee attempts to improve the odds:

I remember reading about "Intelligent Design" as a concept back in the 1990s. It is not new.

Even back then, while it was still under the radar of sensible people, it was already under attack as "creationism" even though those who were talking about it then were not creationists. But the detractors made enough noise that it brought the creationists into the picture — and they decided since the "evolutionists" were agin it, that meant they oughta be for it. And that’s when the people who first brought it up lost control of the concept.

What I recognize as "Intelligent Design" was formed back then — before it became a cause célèbre of those who think the Genesis timeline of six days (and a day of rest) must mean six 24-hour days (and a 24-hour day of rest) — and had nothing to say about the mechanics of evolution except that it takes more faith to credit it all to "accident" than to "not an accident." Indeed, the fact that the universe does indeed abide by these natural laws, and that these laws, seemingly implemented in a heartbeat at the moment when time and space began, made possible such a multivaried and beautiful universe, and one in which not only life could arise, but intelligent life, was all itself being held out as a pretty good argument for an intelligent designer. ID was never meant to be science, but a philosophical response to what science has shown.

And so it came to pass that the concept was inappropriately appropriated, and the label was pasted on Creationism v.2:

What offended its detractors, I think, is that it does indeed require more faith to credit it all to accident than otherwise — and that meant ID was challenging that faith.

Since the most recent challenge to that faith had indeed been "creation science" — an oxymoron of monumental proportions — and since the Holy Church of Divine Accident had defeated that challenge, of course the counter-attack followed the same strategy.

This battle percolated on the back burner for several years, only emerging into the public eye relatively recently, as former "creation science" advocates hijacked the label of "Intelligent Design" for yet another attack on evolution.

My own thinking along these matters has been something like "God made the soup, and what happened after that depends on which bowl it wound up in," which would seem to be at least somewhat consistent with McGehee's description of original ID and generally contrary to the new, usurped ID. My idea of a proper biology class would point out that evolution explains some phenomena extremely well, others not so well, and that science is always subject to change as new information is received — but never subject to change by popular vote. (Otherwise, this being December, I'd be out campaigning for more global warming.)

Posted at 9:03 AM to Immaterial Witness


I have faith and I believe in God as Creator. However, my response to creation science, as defined in recent years, has been the Bible was not meant to be a science textbook.

Posted by: Babs at 9:15 AM on 22 December 2005

Its shortcomings as a science text aside it can be said the Bible does make a good book on warfare ... "Kill them all and let God sort it out" kinda sums up the philosophy.

And as a womens studies textbook it does explain the proper role of women quite nicely ... in a nutshell "a properly attired and submitted woman should be seen and not heard".

Seriously, IMHO such literary work is hopefully not the work of an all knowing and omnipotent creator but the misinterpretation of man over time.

Posted by: Ron at 11:12 AM on 22 December 2005

ID is not yet mature enough to be taught in schools, neither was its predecessor, Creationism. But this debate is not going to go away for long (if it goes away at all).

Evolution is supposedly based on observation. Well, observe this: Everything left to its own devices eventually falls into entropy. It doesn't eventually walk off the table.

Posted by: Mister Snitch! at 9:24 PM on 22 December 2005

Stop the propaganda. Evolution is not scientific. Both are faith based. I believe in the beginning God. Evolutionists believe in the beginning dirt.

Posted by: Ty at 11:42 PM on 22 December 2005

Also Babs.... Of course the Bible is not a science text book, and I am glad for that becouse science text books change all the time. The Holy Bible does not change. Every word of God is pure.

Posted by: Ty at 11:46 PM on 22 December 2005

Ty, would that "pure" word be the King James Version, The greek version, the Aramic version, the catholic version, The Jewish version (sans the new testament of course) or which one? I'm just curious...

Posted by: Ron at 11:03 AM on 23 December 2005

King James.

Posted by: Ty at 11:16 AM on 23 December 2005

Heh. Yeah, the King James version, written in real-time by the folks on the scene -- in 17th-century London.

Posted by: McGehee at 12:15 PM on 23 December 2005

Ty:

In your world, is it because of your faith when you let go of an object that it falls to the ground? If your faith wavers, will it instead float where it was released?

In MY world, I know (not believe) that this object will fall to the ground each and every time.

Posted by: unimpressed at 1:27 PM on 23 December 2005