More nonsense

In an earlier entry, I commented on a criticism of the defense of reason by Charles Krauthammer and George Will by long-time anti-evolutionist Tom Bethell. Now Paul Weyrich weighs in on the side of nonsense.

Many Americans are focused on what should be taught in the schools regarding our universe and the Earth — how life as we know it has come to be.

The question of what should be included in an introductory science curriculum is not difficult -- the current scientific consensus. Intelligent design is nowhere on the radar in that department. Weyrich pretty much admits as much when he devotes most of his effort to citing five Fellows at the pro-Intelligent Design think tank The Discovery Institute and one scientist not affiliated with the Discovery Institute about how much they doubt the efficacy of Darwinian evolution rather than citing any scientific work done on behalf of Intelligent Design. And it's no surprise why, since there has been a vanishingly small amount of scientific work done in Intelligent Design. Intelligent design in science is pretty much God an intelligent designer of the gaps dressed up in a lab coat. Weyrich's later comments on The Discovery Institute's current position makes this clear.

The Discovery Institute takes an interesting position on what should be taught in the public schools. It advised the Dover School Board, now the focus of the court case in Pennsylvania, not to push the teaching of Intelligent Design.

It is obvious to me why the Discovery Institute would rather try to poke holes in modern evolutionary theory than present their own theory. Because there is no theory of Intelligent Design. But that doesn't stop Weyrich.

It is not mixing apples and oranges to note the vituperation of the Darwinists who cannot stand having a competing theory discussed.

There is no competing theory. There a smoke-like whisp of an idea. Going back in the article, Weyrich quotes Cambell and Meyer from Darwinism, Design and Public Education.

Intelligent Design is "the theory that certain features of the physical universe and/or biological systems can be best explained by reference to an intelligent cause (that is, the conscious action of an intelligent agent), rather than an undirected natural process or a material mechanism."

That's not a theory in the scientific sense, it's a guess. It's the Thor intelligent hammerer theory of thunder. Even if there are holes in a natural explanation of a phenomenon, bringing in an intelligence ex machina has never been a useful answer.

Like Bethell, Weyrich chides Krauthammer.

Krauthammer asserted that Intelligent Design is "today's tarted up version of creationism." There is a significant difference. Creationists view the Bible's word to be the equivalent of scientific text. Believers in Intelligent Design come to their conclusion by the evidence they find in nature. They understand the complexity of the cell; they see the vastness of the universe. Belief in Intelligent Design stems from reason, not revelation.

But that's not really true. Intelligent Design is a reaction to the rulings of the 1980s that held that laws requiring the teaching of Creation Science were unconstitutional because Creation Science was inherently religious. If you try to strip out any overtly religious assumptions in Creation Science, what you're left with is Intelligent Design. As Barbara Forrest reported(PDF) in her testimony at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, the '80s era Creation Science textbook Creation Biology morphed into the Intelligent Design textbook Of Pandas and People.

Weyrich closes with this:

Intelligent Design can stand on its merits despite the attempt by Darwin's true believers to label it as sheer creationism. Many scientists who study the universe or cellular biology are increasingly intrigued by their complex processes. It takes more than chance to create such complex systems. Remember it was Einstein who said, "God does not play dice with the universe."

If Intelligent Design could stand on its own merits, it would. It can't, so it sits around trying vaguely to poke holes in real science. And Einstein did say that -- he was talking about Quantum Mechanics. And he was apparently wrong.