Letters to the Editor
-
Misstatement
In the article "Intelligent Designer", on page 2, a mention is made about the "final sentence from an EARLY edition of 'Origin of Species'". In fact, the quote is from the 6TH and FINAL edition of the book, published in 1872.
-
Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design theories are a disservice to religion and an insult to God.
Science has shown through objective, empirical genetic testing that humans and chimpanzees share 98% of the same genetic make up, that in fact all creatures on earth share nearly 80% of the same genetic makeup, from slugs to rats to dogs.
IF Intelligent design is a reality, then this implies several things about the designer. It implies that the 'designer' used a 'template' for the creation of life and all life forms. Using a template requires no intelligence or creativity. It implies that that the 'designer' was not concerned about the end result of this creation process and that one basic design was good enough. It implies that the 'designer' gave only about 20% more thought to the design of the alleged 'higher beings'. It implies that the 'designer' was far from intelligent, and was simply using a single mold to produce life forms on a quick and easy assembly line.
I am insulted that that 'Intelligent Design' includes the word 'intelligent' and that the 'Designer' is equated with God. I am certain that God's plan was much more complex than a simple cuttie cutter template. I believe it is so complex, that humans cannot possibly grasp it. Intelligent Design scientists and Darwinian scientists cannot possibly under any circumstance divine God's motive or processess. Darwinian evolution can describe the mechanics of biology, but rightly leaves commentary about God out. Intelligent Design offers no empirical data and then further goes on to insult God by explaining away his divine plan as a simple matter of mass production.
If 'Intelligent Design' is correct, then God is less a an all powerful divine being and more likely Henry Ford.
-
Irreducible Complexity is predicted by evolution.
Andrea, although I agree with you completely that "irreducible complexity" is a poor arguement for I.D., I think the real problem here (illustrated by 1 minute of conversation with Thompson) is that John Q. Public has absolutely no idea how life sciences work. The link you provided isn't really going to help them.
Just think of the "irreducible complexity" found in an archway. Remove one stone, and the whole thing collapses. You cannot build an archway with the stones alone. You need a scaffold until you place the keystone, which you will later remove. However, if you used irreducible complexity in the way that I.D. people use it, they would look at an archway and say, "Hmm, I guess God made that."
-
Intelligent Designer
If the Intelligent Designer is so smart, how do we explain cockroaches, slime mold and Bill O'Reilly? How about unintelligent design? According to the gnostics, the world was created by a minor god who was in over his head. Their creation myth fits the observable facts more than does the Genesis myth. Maybe I should take a cue from the creationist lobby and complain that the public schools aren't teaching my favorite myth.
-
Intelligent Designer
Funny how the analogy of William Paley is mentioned about a found watch. If a watch is found, it would not be far-fetched to assume there was watch maker involved.
Of course, just as there were watch parts manufacturers involved in creating the parts to make the watch. So are we to deduce there were perhaps many designers in the creation of the earth's creatures?
Not one god, but many?
Or maybe one god as the plant manager and many mid-level managers overseeing various assembly lines with worker-creators?
That would take a really powerful labor union to bargain for a fair wage.
-
Geoffrey Spear's response to ... me!
Geoffrey,
I may have misstated myself, or at least put too much emphasis on one aspect of the debate.
I agree it's incredibly unlikely Intelligent Design would ever emerge as true science, as it has practically nothing to do with the scientific method. I agree that part of ID's problem is that it shuts off science by meeting any unanswered question with a simple deadend answer of "the Creator made it that way) rather than inspiring further study as science should. I also agree that pretty much the soul purpose of ID (as evidenced by even a casual look into its biggest financial supporters) is just an excuse to slip Creationism into schools while nibbling away at public perception's view of evolution.
My point was that even *IF* ID were (or rather, one day proved to be) a legitimate theory ... which is a highly debatable point, of course ... that still doesn't mean it should be shoehorned into public schools like the IDers want. For example, there are plenty of speculative theories in cosmology (quantum physics, strings, possible alternate realities, etc.) that to my knowledge aren't generally required to be covered in public school. Science education focuses on theories that are already well-supported by years of research and scrutiny. ID, even in a best-case scenerio, isn't that.
Intelligent Design is not science (at least, doesn't appear to be) and I agree it should be scrutinized and attacked so it can be seen for what it is and finally taken off the shelf, as it were. My only concern is when science proponents attack it too harshly in the public arena, they only help foster ID's self-made image as a poor, misunderstood field that's being vilified and suppressed by "the establishment," and drums up sympathy among the public ... which in this case is as important an arena as the courts are.
That's my point and my concern ... otherwise I completely agree with you. Go Go Evolution!
-
More, More More!
If the (unbelievable as it seems) 80% of our nation that "say" they believe in God could watch and reason from this particular article and equally importantly its letters back in comment, I believe, Creationism in any form would be intelligently rejected. I would even be so bold as to suggest it would be rejected as nonsense, and that its subset titled Intelligent Design certainly wouldn't be credited as science nor should it be taught in schools. And faith would in no way be shaken in the process. The problem has been that the thorough illumination, as an example, wha is finally offered here, doesn't happen when the subject come up in the general media, etc. only the conflict in and of itself is headlined. People need to be able to read the thinking. Bravo Salon! I read here that another subscriber doesn't agree, but I for one am a VERY thankful subscriber to Salon for providing this discourse. See, I'm not a scientist, but because many who have written here are and explain well, including most certainly Mr. Slack initiating article, I now can carry these arguments against Intelligent Design being admitted to our school systems curriculums forward by using everyone's very sound talking points. Missing the boat completely re genomics, and everything else presented in the letter comments needs to be explained again and again and again and then again once more! Thank you, thank you very much!