Intelligent Design Might Backfire on Religious

The more I think about it, research into the theory that an hypothetical "intelligence" may be involved in development of complex organisms on Earth, might not be such a bad thing after all.

And it might not turn out the way the religious Right expects. As a theory, there is something compelling about the notion that there must have been some "input" from outside the system for such incredibly specialized organs such as eyeballs to have come into being.

Before we look at this issue, let's get one thing straight: The religious extremists who want "Intelligent Design" to be taught in classrooms have no desire for the discovery of truth behind nature. They only want God to be presented as a fact to students. They don't care a whit for understanding, for clarity, or for any of the reasons scientists do what they do. The supporters of Intelligent Design just want their own religious beliefs to be validated by making them part of scientific curriculum.

Let's say, after decades of research into some hypothetical intelligence behind evolution, that we discover life on Earth to be descendant from extraterrestrial sources. Will the Creationists embrace this discovery? If it turns out that some advanced spacefaring race seeded the Earth with the beginnings of life, will the current proponents of "Intelligent Design" be satisfied? If experimental research establishes time and time again that there was no "designer" behind the march from monkey to man, will the intelligent design folks ever admit that they're wrong? Well, so far, It has...and they haven't. Ultimately, it's faith that makes someone believe that there was some intelligent, all-powerful entity behind the machinations of evolution. If not, we'd be seeing the experimental evidence otherwise. If not in publications like Nature or Science (we're told those publications are involved in a conspiracy against God), then at least in a few of the thousands of journals of varying reputation. I'm not a scientist, but I know enough about science to know that it would be pretty hard to design an experiment that would prove the hand of an Intelligent Designer behind life on Earth, if in fact that's what the I.D. folks wanted to prove. In fact, it's not. They only want to find justification for their own beliefs. It has nothing at all to do with science.

For the Intelligent Design crowd, it's got to be God or nothing. Anything besides the Judeo-Christian model of a bearded patriarch up in the clouds putting in a six-day work week beginning with "Let there be light" is not going to go down with the James Dobsons of this world.
I have enough belief in science that I accept challenges to conventional wisdom. Opposing theories are always welcome, but let's see the evidence. And let's go where the data takes us. If there are real scientists who want Intelligent Design to be examined side-by-side with the theory of evolution, they have to start by establishing some common ground with the scientific world. For example, if they were to admit that the Earth is definitely more than 6,000 years old, that fossils actually exist, and that carbon-dating techniques are in fact useful, it might go a long way toward convincing the vast majority of scientists that they really are trying to get to the truth. But first they have to convince us that they're not just mouthpieces for those who would mandate religious belief. The history of creationists trying to undermine science has created a lot of mistrust among scientists. And the burden of proof, as always, is on those who claim that everything we know is wrong. It's more than a cliche that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Bush's Intelligent Design & Burkas Banned

One can only imagine the sweaty palms that George W. Bush's aides get when the big guy gets in front of a group of journalists. Even with extensive training, in-the-ear radio prompts and beta-blocking drugs, there's just no telling when he's going to drop a bomb. To the credit of Karl Rove and Co., they've managed to make the best of some of the president's startling statements, but they've even been able to spin some of the worst of them into political gold. But there's always the possibility that he'll drop a "anyone who leaks will be fired" into the mix like a toddler peeing in the swimming pool.

Yesterday, the topic in one of these presidential press conferences turned to creationism, or, as it's been newly crafted by the endlessly creative gentlemen who use faith to govern, "intelligent design". The idea is that because human beings and the world in which they swarm is so darned complicated, and not all mechanisms for the development of such a system are fully disclosed yet (it's not on videotape, I guess), that means the whole shooting match must have been planned and implemented by some infinite, unique intelligence. And, in the stunningly chauvinistic manner of small-minded people, this intelligence just has to be human-like. In other words: some guy is behind the whole thing. Sure enough, given a little bit of rope, the president managed to craft a nifty noose for himself, claiming that of course intelligent design should be taught in science classrooms, since that's the only way our students will learn about the controversy.

In the name of full disclosure, at this point let me state that I'm inclined to believe that there is intelligence in the design of the universe. I've learned enough science, though, to realize that this belief of mine is purely in the realm of the philosophic and theologic, there being no proof of this, and probably no way to prove it either. But hey, that's why we call it "faith". Having said all this, by no means under any circumstances do I feel that this belief should get anywhere near a science classroom. It's bad enough that our children are doing so poorly in math and science compared to much less "advanced" countries, letting them graduate high school with the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that evolution is "just a theory" and that creationism is some sort of equally worthy theory is nothing short of child abuse.

There's a problem with Bush's seemingly reasonable claim that our children need to learn about the "controversy" of evolution vs. intelligent design: THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY.

Now, plenty of supposedly learned people are brought before us, claiming to be scientists, who support the idea of creationism (I won't use "intelligent design" beyond this point, since it's really just the dressing-up of the old idea that Jehovah made it all). We see well-meaning, erudite-looking folks who have plenty of letters after their names. No, they haven't published any research in widely-accepted journals, but that's only because there's an evil conspiracy keeping their papers off the desks of editors. I've spent enough of my professional life working with professors at places like the University of Chicago and Northwestern to have heard every excuse for crackpots not getting published. I have seen with my own eyes some of these grease-smeared manuscripts carefully explaining how an eyeball could never have come to exist without some serious engineering help. I can tell you that these papers get the same consideration as any other crackpot idea. And make no mistake, they are ALL crackpot ideas until the research is so solid, so well-documented, and the paper so well-written that it practically jumps into the editors' hands. Does this mean that a lot of good ideas get ignored? For a while, but as imperfect as the system of peer-reviewed publications is, it's a system by which the truth does eventually rise.

Another interesting thing about the "scientists" who struggle against this conspiracy to keep God out of the realm of scientific thought: Although they have lots of letters after their names, they are almost never the right letters. Instead of biologists, anthropologists, anatomists, the creationist community is made up of mechanical engineers, communications majors, and of course, doctors of divinity. I guess it's too much to expect that those who would make such extraordinary claims actually would have some knowledge of the fields in question.

++++++++++++++++++

In the last few days, there has been a lot of noise in the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio about France and Italy passing laws against some of the more onerous displays of abuse of women by the extremist Muslim communities in those countries, such as the wearing of burkas (those wrappings used by Muslim women to keep men from noticing that they are women). "Why don't we hear liberals complaining about the way Muslim women are mistreated? Is it because (da-dum dum) they are too TOLERANT??"

Even after a decade of hearing their bald-faced dissembling, the ability of the right to completely ignore facts can still astound me. I don't know which liberals the members of the Bush marching-band like Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett (ex-Secretary of Education and degenerate gambler) have been listening too, but I've been hearing a whole lot of outrage regarding the second-class status of women in religious extremist societies, including Muslims. Since the late 50's, feminist writers have made the awful circumstances of these women a primary cause in their fight against misogynistic cultures. It's the right that has come to this issue too late and too light. And they better be careful, because when we start looking into mistreatment and discrimination against women and their rights, it's only a matter of time until our eyes light upon those extreme religious types in our own country, like those who would take a way a woman's right to sovereignty over her own reproductive system. When the surgeon-general comes out against birth control or even contraception, how far away are the burkas, really? It's sadly funny sometimes to watch one of these conservative commentators go on about liberty and a culture of freedom, and then have to carefully navigate away from the meaning of those words when it comes to women, gays, or non-Christians.

Do I believe that as a liberal I must tolerate mistreatment of women in the name of religious freedom? Of course not! Our founding fathers were so determined to keep religious considerations out of the legal structure of our country that they carefully and purposefully kept all mention of God out of our Constitution. It would have been easy for them to clearly connect the laws of the United States to a religious tradition, but they didn't. With all the talk from the right about the need for "orignalists" on our Supreme Court, we need to keep that in mind.