Thou shalt deny me thrice before the court crows

December 21, 2005 by Jeff Jarvis

What strikes me most about the so-called “intelligent design” hooha is that the religious right is hiding God. Yes, of course, that’s their trick: If we don’t call God God but instead call his work “intelligent design,” then we can sneak him into curricula because the nonbelievers are just too stupid, or so goes their rationale. Nobody — save George Bush and the 700 members of the 700 Club — is buying it. The good citizens of Dover, Pa., turned out the fanatical school board members who tried this trick. And yesterday, a federal judge called it for the sham it am. An excerpt:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy….

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

And that’s the essence of what is shocking: By trying to insist that this is faux science and not religion, the religious right behind this alleged movement are denying God to sell God, lying about the Bible to drive the Bible. By trying to hide God, it is almost as if they are ashamed of him but I think he would be ashamed of them.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Not only is Intelligent Design a Trojan Horse for Creationism, but its message — “It’s too complicated, so we give up trying to understand it!” — is absolutely antithetical to everything American ingenuity stands for. I’m just as outraged at the can’t-do attitude I.D. represents as I am the shameless attempt to equate theology with scientific theory.

  • JSinger

    Not only does Intelligent Design have this curious denial of God in favor of this mysterious Designer (who is just like God, but different!) — now that the Dover decision leaned heavily on defining “science”, the ID crowd is now trotting out the most relativist, nihilist philosphy of the 20th century to attack that line of argument!

    Personally, I’d prefer a simple statement of faith to be taught in school than this nonsense that embarasses both science and religion.

  • http://robertdfeinman.com/society Robert Feinman

    Jeff:
    You may not have noticed but there is a common thread to your two items, this one and the one about Christmas.

    In both cases there is a group of strongly religious Christians (of one particular protestant variant) trying to inject theology in to what are usually considered secular parts of society. Usually deeply religious people want to keep secular activities away from their practices.

    Are these people feeling insecure in their faith and need affirmation by public institutions or, perhaps, they feel this is some sort of proselytizing that they are called on to do?

    In point of fact, secularism is a threat to these groups, not because of any grand plot, but because there is a demographic shift underway in this country. The young are much more socially liberal than their elders and not nearly as interested in organized religion. It’s not clear that 50 years from now organized religion will be practiced by the 3-5% as in parts of western Europe, but it will be significantly lower than the 35-45% that it has now in the US.

  • http://lifeispeacefulchaos.blogspot.com Winston Hearn

    Where does your information regarding the Intelligent Design movement come from? The Media? Those people who are horribly behind the times in all things except apparently religious issues?

    Or have you read any of Philip Johnson’s books? Or Michael Behe’s “Darwin’s Black Box?” Have you actually read or heard from the actual thinkers behind the groups, or do you look at the Media’s brief overview of “What is intelligent design?” and then assume what you want from that?

    I think that this rant is fairly humorous, because it doesn’t seem that you’ve actually looked into Intelligent Design at all. Scott Adams did [The Dilbert Blog] and was surprised at what he found. Part 1 is here.

  • http://chicagozoner.blogspot.com The Zoner

    I don’t think ID backers are trying to hide God. For some it may be a covert way of sneaking God into the school sytem. But for me, teaching evolution is just bad science. With the onset of molecular biology, DNA and understanding of things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, most scientists would agree that evolution as a means for creation (there is indeed evolution) is akin to believing that the world is still flat.

    I think it is more about people scared to talk or think about God. Because if we laid it out, science points in the direction of ID now, not evolution. Take your personal views out and look at all the facts. Someone mentioned Behe’s book and that is a great read too, which goes into many of the issues.

  • http://www.brucecordell.com Bruce

    Winston,

    Here’s how I see the debate. ID wants to be science. Ok, what is science? Science requires testable hypotheses–that is science’s essential, immutable mechanism.

    ID doesn’t provide any testable hypotheses. It could well be that the universe has a designer–that’s a great hypothesis. But what tests can we do to discover if that is true or not? If we can’t formulate a test based on the hypothesis, it is not science, it is faith (like string theory…). I fault most public institutions for awkwardly portraying science as a series of facts instead of a process. Science’s heart is its method–hypothesize, test, repeat. We should stick to science in science classrooms, and religion and spiritual matters in church.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    Oh, wow. The writer of Dilbert thinks I.D. merits a second glance? No wonder his comic strip hasn’t been funny since the Mid 90′s!

    Show me one proponent of Intelligent Design whose work can survive the peer review process and we’ll continue this conversation. Don’t worry — I won’t wait up.

  • http://www.edcone.com Ed Cone

    Winston, that would be the same Michael Behe who said during the Dover trial that the new, expanded definition of “science” he endorses would have to allow for astrology as well as ID?

  • http://none Matt C

    The dishonesty/duplicity you attribute to ID proponents is what the religious faithful have suspected of their opponents all along. The teaching of evolution was said to be a mere teaching of fact, though we’d have to be naive to not also note that this was said by eager atheists (or perhaps it would be more true to call them anti-theists) with their own agenda. It’s undeniable that this theory of accidental existence spawned from absolute nothingness that has since then improved itself exponentially does not stand so tall as to shame all alternative theories.

    I think the very general suggestion “hey, maybe we were actually created, seeing how impossibly complex, and how terrifically symbiotic our bodies, environment, and solar system are…” deserves even a token mentioning in the same conversation as the theory of evolution, whose chances of ever happening (let’s be generous and start not with the big-bang, but with the primordial soup) are so infinitesimally small that we’d need a large-screen computer monitor to show the full number of zeros after the decimal for such a likelihood.

    Bottom line: if ID is thrown out b/c it’s not science, fine. But neither is evolution.

  • daudder

    the whole thing is a fake issue, used by the right, to distract otherwise sensible people into non-sensical behavior.

    there is absolutley no threat to religion, faith or god in america today; rather it is those who claim to be faithful, religious and god-fearing who are threatening america.

  • http://oodja.blogspot.com Jersey Exile

    It’s undeniable that this theory of accidental existence spawned from absolute nothingness that has since then improved itself exponentially does not stand so tall as to shame all alternative theories.

    Evolution isn’t accidental. Nor does it work exponentially. If you’re still stuck on how eyes or wings evolve by “chance,” may I recommend some Stephen J. Gould instead of labelling it mysterious and calling it a day?

    That’s the difference between science and I.D.. Science doesn’t pretend to have answers — just more questions. I have no problems with answers that explain “Why?”, but let’s keep them out of the science curriculum and in the departments of religion and philosophy.

  • chico haas

    Can anyone here really say with certainty that Evolution accurately accounts for the march of life on Earth? No. It’s a pretty astute observation – one that pays tribute to our power to reason – but it ain’t a lockdown. It’s a damn good best guess and, in the interest of what makes Science a rigorous discipline, it ought to be noted as such in the classroom. What I would call Intelligent Disclosure.

  • http://digitalnative.blogspot.com/ Bob Denmore

    This whole ridiculous debate is just further evidence that we are currently in a de-evolutionary spiral into a new Dark Age. The gains of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment are being gradually unravelled by a resurgence of fear, superstition and religious idolatory.

    Whether Muslim fanatics or Christian fanatics, the world of reason is under assault by new dark forces who would rob us of our humanity and an advanced civilisation built up over hundreds of years.

  • http://usliberals.about.com Deborah White

    Intelligent Design belongs in a comparative religion or similar class. My high schooler is presently enrolled in an IB world history class, in which they are studying comparative world religions and their impact on the history and culture of various regions in the world. They just finished a chapter on Buddhism. Intelligent Design would be a proper fit in such a class.

    What puzzles me is that Intelligent Design is proud to NOT be science, so why would it be taught in a science course? The apparent answer is that the supporters of ID in public schools don’t really want it to be taught….they just want science to NOT be taught.

    Personally, I find the whole silly mess to be hooey. I believe that some form of evolution IS God’s intelligent design.

  • Jim S

    If ID isn’t religion explain this reaction to the decision:
    “This galvanizes the Christian community,” said William Dembski, a leading proponent of the theory and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank that promotes intelligent design research. “People I’m talking to say we’re going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.”

    Also keep in mind that the Dover school board wanted the book “Of Pandas and People” to be freely available in the school library to provide the information they wanted on ID to be in the schools. See this on the origins of the book:
    http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html#more

    The claim that evolution is statistically improbably relies on a very bad version of statistics. For some discussions pointing out Behe’s problems with numbers and other principles of scientific research see:

    http://www.talkreason.org/articles/behe2.cfm#calculates
    http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000480.html
    http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php

  • Matt C

    To Jersey exile –

    Our existence would be “accidental” in the sense that it wasn’t intended, prompted, or planned by an outside personality. If a can of paint falls off the shelf because of a mild earthquake, causing it to splatter on the floor — the floor may be beautiful, but it’s still the result of chance. I wasn’t saying at all that the fittest animals who survive do so by accident.

    And by “exponential,” I was referring to the unfathomable progress that turned a mud-puddle into Paul Ham, Olympic gold medalist. Perhaps technically it’s not a fitting word for however genetic mutation is said to happen. Fine. But let’s be realistic. Evolution theorists somehow maintain a straight face and say lifeless goo can not only wake up like pinnochio or frankenstein, but also heal itself, and reproduce, and develop 5 senses, as well organs which just so happen to rely on each other in spite of the fact that they developed at different points on the timeline.

    Like I said before. If you want to throw out ID, that’s fine with me. But throw out evolution, because it’s not science either. This whole topic is far too large for science class, and science itself, and for scientists to worship themselves as the end-all in these matters is something I find to be laughable.

  • http://www.vastwasteland.blogspot.com/ chris

    It seems pretty clear that intelligent design is not science, but rather a rather naive faith in the ultimate supermacy of humanity (created in God’s image, of course not possible to be related to monkeys) that deserves to be taught in a religion class instead. The argument that nature is too complex to have simply involved is sheer hokum, of course, since you can no more easily posit a mysterious and all-powerful (but not God!) creator than you can then ask, “But who created the creator?” And so on, reductio absurdium.

    Since what the ID people really want is to bring talk of God back into schools, then why don’t we have public schools teach a short comparative religion class? Then teachers could go through all the major world religions and discuss their histories and the similarities and differences between all their respective theologies. That would certainly bring God back into the classroom but the ID crowd will never go for this. Why? Because it would involve talk of other gods besides their evangelical Jesus.

  • Kissypooh

    ID is faith. I believe in it and I can say that. That’s not to say that faith isn’t based on rationality. Faith isn’t subjective. Kant invented that myth.

    If we can separate ourselves from the specific political situation, the real debate is over the theory of evolution. Explain to me how this theory is scientific. Where is the observation? Where is the testing? Where is the falsifiability? Where is the repetition? And peer review? You guys don’t know what peer review is. Peer review isn’t, “Yah I agree too.” Peer review is independently repeating the results. Everything else is merely a press release. I don’t care if your name is Stephen Jay Gould. It’s still a press release, and press releases don’t mean squat.

    The theory of evolution is not scientific theory. It’s naturalism, an atheistic philosophy disguised as a natural theory. 70% of the public is smart enough to figure that out because 70% of the public doesn’t believe in evolution. That’s not Dark Ages style ignorance; it’s common sense. It takes blind faith to believe that this world and all of its complexity created itself from a pre-existing primordial soup (apparently exempt from entropy). It takes less faith to believe in intelligent design.

    Neither theory belongs in a science classroom. I don’t give a rip what scientists say. Scientists can’t define away God and call it science, and then indoctrinate kids with impunity. That’s pure religion, and poor religion at that. That’s why nobody’s buying it, except the few of you here who are self-righteous and pseudo-intellectual nitwits.

  • Caroline

    Ever heard of Blaise Pascal? I have this feeling that he may have been a famous scientist. Hmmm. He was also a philosopher and a logical thinker, as opposed to you folks here, who are rationalistic, but not rational. He wagered. He said I can be atheist. I can be a materialist (today we would call a materialist an evolutionist). If I’m right, when I die, I’ll become dirt (my life having meant absolutely nothing because there is no purpose or meaning within a materialistic existence). If I’m wrong, oh boy, I’ll be in hell. That’s half the story.

    He also said, I can be a theist (otherwise known as an intelligent designer). If I’m wrong, I’ll become dirt when I die (again my life having meant absolutely nothing). If I’m right, oh boy, I’ll be in heaven.

    Let’s see. If I’m putting my life on the roulette wheel, what is the smart wager? The outcomes are dirt, dirt, hell, or heaven, but there are only two paths that lead to those 4 potential outcomes. Since we can’t predict the outcome, there are no odds per se. There is only a combination of inevitability (your death) and potential, and therefore potential consequences (heaven or hell). Personally, I choose the potential of heaven over the potential of hell.

    Most of you will not. You will be too stubborn to choose rationally. You will be too offended at your choices, and at God for providing these choices (even though you claim you are an atheist). You will rationalize your choice because you are angry at theists or Christians or idiots like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

    Pascal’s point: Atheism has no upside. Even if atheism is correct, what is the upside, what is the benefit? You’re still glorified dirt, and the glory is an illusion. From dirt you have come (evolution) and to dirt you shall return (death). But the downside to atheism is horrific. I’m sorry that offends you. Take it up with God. Actually I’m not really that sorry. I’m grieved for you, not for the truth.

    “Narrow is the path that leads to life.” By definition that means most of you will turn your nose up and turn your head away from God. My hope is that one of you will come to your senses. The choice is yours. Will you choose the rational choice, and get your life right with the Intelligent Designer? Will you be the one?

  • Fred

    The ID / evolution debate disguises the political situation. It’s a power struggle. You heathen have abused your power. You think you have an absolute right to brainwash my children and you don’t. If you stuck to the facts in science class that would be one thing. But you can’t resist the temptation to change the faith of my kids who are sitting in your classroom, all the while using my tax dollars to do so. Excuse me for attempting to level the playing field! The ivory towers are under assault and will fall. You are free to move to Canada. Or you could stop acting like tyrants and stick to the facts in the classroom.

  • http://lifeispeacefulchaos.blogspot.com Winston Hearn

    I wish that in the debate we could admit one thing:

    Nothing in life can be proved.

    That’s not a cynical statement for me to make. I don’t claim that Intelligent Design is provable. But I seriously want to know how Evolution is provable?

    I am not here to argue for or against the validity of any science. But on the purely rational, base level – is it any more likely that random, accidental mutations progressed life into the state it exists today, than there is something that designed life, and the universe, and that everything works together by reason?

    I’m tired of seeing the debate framed as “Reason” versus “Religion”. Intelligent Design is trying to keep the debate in the realm of Reason.

    Bruce responded to me by saying that science is testable and immutable. Simply stating that, means accepting by faith that the universe works together in ways we can understand and reproduce.

    If you can’t admit that’s an assumption of faith, then you don’t understand the questions that Intelligent Design proponents are asking.

  • Tiny Tim

    Has it ever dawned on anybody that scientists have been working for 60 years to create life from chemicals and that they have made zero progress?

    There’s your scientific evidence against biogenesis (spontaneous generation), and therefore macroevolution.

    If the seemingly intelligent can’t do it, exactly how is the unintelligent going to do it? That is chance or accident as Matt referred to it above.

    So who is intelligent? The one that believes that life comes from the unintelligent (despite the scientific evidence against this idea). Or the one that believes that life comes from the Intelligent?

    The intelligent need a dose of humble pie. The Intelligent is serving it now. Want a piece?

  • Dr. Poopyhead

    If a monkey poops out a human in the woods, will anybody care?

  • Gaylord Focker

    If you can milk the teets of a kitty cat on a farm, tell me why after millions of years of gradual adaptations (due to various fortuitive mutations), why do the teets get stuck between your teeth?

  • Melvin Hodges

    I just realized what “Blow me Down” has always meant.

    Shiver me timber!

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    There’s really no such thing as Intelligent Design theory. ID is simply old-fashioned creationism put in pseudo-scientific lingo to try and escape the Supreme Court’s 1987 ruling banning the teaching of creationism. Bush appointee Judge Jones was not fooled and nobody else should be either.

    Anyone who claims to support ID is really admitting to being either a liar or an idiot, or both.

  • Pingback: CaNN :: We started it.

  • Dictyranger

    The Zoner says: But for me, teaching evolution is just bad science. With the onset of molecular biology, DNA and understanding of things like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, most scientists would agree that evolution as a means for creation (there is indeed evolution) is akin to believing that the world is still flat.

    This, folks, is the voice of a person who does not know that most evolutionary biologists younger than 40 are molecular biologists.

    Or that it is nearly impossible to get a Systematics grant through an NSF study panel without proposing to spend half of your time analyzing DNA. Or that one of the hottest topics in evolutionary biology right now is genome evolution. I mean, c’mon.