כּנור דוד

Kinnor David - "a most attractive blog".

Monday, November 21, 2005

Krauthammer takes on "Intelligent Design"

The ever-perceptive Charles Krauthammer identigifies "Intelligent Design" as a phony theory, and certainly not science. He argues, correctly in my view, that its proponents are foolish to pit faith against evolution:

Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today." A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable. How does one empirically disprove the proposition that God was behind the lemur, or evolution -- or behind the motion of the tides or the "strong force" that holds the atom together?

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase " natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

The school board thinks it is indicting evolution by branding it an "unguided process" with no "discernible direction or goal." This is as ridiculous as indicting Newtonian mechanics for positing an "unguided process" by which Earth is pulled around the sun every year without discernible purpose. What is chemistry if not an "unguided process" of molecular interactions without "purpose"? Or are we to teach children that God is behind every hydrogen atom in electrolysis?

He may be, of course. But that discussion is the province of religion, not science. The relentless attempt to confuse the two by teaching warmed-over creationism as science can only bring ridicule to religion, gratuitously discrediting a great human endeavor and our deepest source of wisdom precisely about those questions -- arguably, the most important questions in life -- that lie beyond the material.

How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too.

Of course, as Charles Johnson at LGF notes, even the Vatican agrees that whatever "Intelligent Design" might be, it is not science. Religious faith and evolution are not mutually exclusive, but it is a mark of the insecurity, and plain lack of intellectual and theological rigour and subtlety of some religious denominations that they feel the need to invent bogus science to validate their faith.

1 Comments:

Anonymous blista said...

There is room for intelligent design, but it is in Theology class, not science class. It's not right to dismiss intelligent design, nor is it right to ring fence what we know and can prove about the world and call every thing we locked out "intelligent design".

8:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home