Intelligent design is intellectual dishonesty, Sept. 15, 2005
Several writers have been critical of Bradley Fikes' indictment of intelligent design as nonscientific. Intelligent design argues that the universe displays design in all dimensions. It further argues that design implies a designer. This is an old piece of anthropomorphism, i.e. we intelligent humans design things, therefore all design must have an intelligent designer.Tell it to orb spiders whose beautifully symmetrical webs involve no intelligence, just instinct. To impose such a fabrication on the nation's young is the height of intellectual dishonesty and would set back the teaching of science. That kind of nonscientific argument can have destructive consequences analogous to the Soviet Union's adoption of Lysenko's genetic theory in place of the scientifically accepted Mendelian genetics, because it better fit Soviet ideology. Truth was not a concern, political domination was.Intelligent design proponents are part of a massive effort by the religious right to dominate the educational system of this country. This effort includes the recent suit by students of Calvary Chapel Christian Schools to compel the University of California to accredit their religious courses. It can be seen at work in Richard Ackerman's candidacy for the board of the Murrieta Valley Unified School District.Ackerman is a pro bono lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, which legally supports those seeking to teach intelligent design in public schools. See the National Center for Science Education http://www.ncseweb.org/ This effort also includes the attack on the nation's universities by David Horowitz's campaign to install a political test for professorships.ROBERT NEWHARD
posted by Bob Newhard | 10:00 PM
4 Comments:
Instinct is a sign of intelligent design
In response to Robert Newhard's letter, Sept. 15, "Intelligent design is intellectual dishonesty," I feel a need to respond to his one example.
The orb spider truly does weave a beautiful symmetrical web, and it is the product of instinct. Is it not true, though, that instinct is information coded into the organism's DNA? This information is encoded in a complex language using only four characters (acids). DNA is the language of life. It is intelligence imbedded into the organism. Where did this intelligence originate?
This is the same intelligence that not only creates an organism from scratch, but tells it what to eat, where to live, and how to reproduce. Another example would be a bird. The DNA of a bird contains a song, star charts, nest building, caring for offspring, etc. Even a simple flower contains information on how to use sunlight to create food.
These are just a few examples. There are many, more. This does not strike me as intellectual dishonesty to admit that intelligence is at the root of our world and life. Even the very laws of nature reveal intelligence. To assume that these marvelous things just happened by accident, and to teach that to our children is to commit intellectual suicide.
Doug Verner
Ackerman would be a good trustee
I would like to thank Robert Newhard for his letter of Sept. 15, introducing us to Murrieta school board candidate Richard Ackerman.
Some voters may not be aware that Mr. Ackerman is providing free legal counsel to Calvary Chapel Christian School in its complaint against the University of California for failing to give course credit. Everyone knows that private schools outperform public schools, and perhaps Mr. Ackerman's contact with them will be beneficial in his capacity as school board trustee if he should be elected.
I'm sure the voters in Murrieta appreciate Mr. Ackerman's altruism and hard work. He is also associated with the Alliance Defense Fund in opposing the political dominance of Darwin's theory as the only acceptable explanation of life's origin. Even Darwin believed in intelligent design, and only that aspect of his theory is beyond dispute.
Denying students access to scientific evidence that contradicts the latest "politically correct" theory is not good science. There shouldn't be a philosophical litmus test for those running for school board. Thanks again to Mr. Newhard for bringing Richard Ackerman's outstanding record to our attention.
RICK KELLOGG
Wildomar
Reply to Mr. Verner,
Mr. Verner does not seem to get the point of my criticism of Intelligent Design, whose premise is that design implies an intelligent designer. The Orb spider per se has no intelligence, only instinct. Saying that the spider's DNA is intelligent would not only surprise Crick and Watson, but, at best, removes the problem one step. Ultimately Intelligent Design rests on the old argument that a causal sequence implies a first cause. Because we humans observe what we call causal relationships between events in our limited life spans, or even species spans, it does not follow that a causal sequence must have a first cause. That is simply a linguistic construct, which we place on the causal sequence that we observe. We can always ask what caused the first cause. To stop at any point is obviously arbitrary. There is, for example, no contradiction in asserting that a causal sequence is infinite.
More importantly, Mr. Verner illustrates one form of the dishonesty implicit in the Intelligent Design argument. It is intellectually unjustifiable and, if intentional, intellectually dishonest to argue from propositions that have evidence to one that has none. The evidence for DNA is the result of long, laborious, and often frustrating research. Mr. Verner, who gives no evidence either for Intelligent Design or for anything resembling scientific research, would, nonetheless, have us give the same level of credibility to it.
Bob Newhard
Reply to Rick Kellogg,
As is so typical of the arbitrariness if the Far Right, Mr. Kellogg refuses to deal with my criticism of Intelligent Design. Instead he spends most of his time supporting the ideologue Richard Ackerman with statements, true or false, about his character and good works. This of course has no bearing upon Ackerman's willingness to impose Intelligent Design upon the students of the Murrieta School district. Mr. Kellogg, again as is so common with the Far Right simply asserts that Intelligent Design is scientific, no evidence offered, and construes the support for Darwinian evolution as political. This latter is a continuing tactic of the far right, i.e. to convert noetic and scientific issues into legal ones, where lawyers rather than scientists debate the issues appealing to an untutored jury and then to convert the legal issue into a political one subject to the decision of the mass of people, who have no understanding of science nor the nature of evidence. Mr. Kellogg then goes on to a flat lie, namely, there is "scientific evidence" for Intelligent Design. There is none, nor, does he offer any.
Mr. Kellogg then goes on to compound his fabrications by asserting that Darwin believed in intelligent design. In the first place, what a scientist believes has nothing to do with the scientific merits of his work, only evidence counts. In the second place this assertion is false. To quote from Darwin's autobiography, " The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man." This is another characteristic of the Far Right, namely, to assert as fact that which is not in the hope or supposition that they will not be found out or, more likely, that in today's atmosphere of hype that it won't matter, i.e. that it is just a difference of opinion. So much for the intellectual honesty of those who would call themselves the moral majority.
Robert Newhard
Post a Comment
<< Home