Intelligent Design…I Can’t get no Respect.

Nothing ever gets built on schedule or within budget. – Cheop’s Law. I just knew contractors were always like that :}

People who subscribe to the Intelligent design “theory” are constantly complaining that nobody accepts their “theory.” What they mean is, no real scientists or serious science journal accepts what they say; so consequently, they get no respect.

What they invariably forget to mention is that their “theory” depends on the acceptance of magic as a part of the real world. I can see why they don’t mention this, as there has never been an instance of verifiable, repeatable, testable magic in the whole history of our world.

Have you, or anyone you know, ever been witness to magic? If you think this happened, have there been witnesses, and has it been widely acknowledged as a true event? Don’t say the Bible either, as this book is widely known to be copies of copies and parts are known to be allegory and other parts could be made up theology. Also, the man who went around raising dead people, curing leprosy, and had thousands of followers is not supported in non-biblical writing. I know two billion people believe in it, but one billion people are Hindu’s, with a whole nother’ belief in world history, and apparent validity of their own Gods.

There is, of course, no recognizable physical support for any of the ‘God as a spirit’ believing religions, and there never has been. Of course ID people try to turn this around by saying that there is no evidence for evolution, conveniently forgetting that Darwin has been gathering steam for 150 years, long before ID was even a gleam in anybodies eyes, and it keeps getting stronger in proofs. The ID people need to accept that and stop trying make our whole world fit into their rather small and smothering mold.

All the “facts of science” that ID people advance, generally sound plausible to the layman, or even to the well educated sometimes. But, this same “fact”, when given to someone who is schooled in the science in question, the ID argument invariably falls apart. And the problem for the ID’ers is all of the sciences are advancing so rapidly now that even they can’t stay ahead of the curve.

The biggest problem facing the Intelligent Design fans is that they have so far been unable to come up with any convincing science or proofs to back up their claims. All of their claims (except the paranormal ones, that are inherently un-provable) have been disproved in the real world of physical sciences.

In the February issue of the conservative magazine ‘Townhall‘ (they can be found on the internet at townhall.com) a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, David Klinghoffer, bemoans the fact that people that believe in ID get no respect at mainstream universities. In fact they usually hide their belief from fear of being fired. He writes of Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy at Iowa State University who was denied tenure, reputedly because of his being outspoken on ID. He goes on to describe others who have suffered in the science community because of their beliefs in intelligent design religion.

I wonder if the universities are doing this so they don’t get into the same situation as Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, where Michael Behe, author of various ID friendly books is a professor of biochemistry. The Department of Biological Sciences department, of which he is of course a member, had to come up with a disclaimer, telling the world that they do not subscribe to professor Behe’s theories. Following is that disclaimer:

Department Position on Evolution and “Intelligent Design”
“The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.” My emphasis.

I think this is a fair position for the university to take, as they have to compete for serious students and faculty in the real world. Let the ID proponents form their own institutions of higher learning, get accreditation, and compete for credibility. I might add that professor Behe’s testimony in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District was singled out by the judge as specious, and that: “intelligent design is not science but essentially religious in nature.”

It helps if you remember that a number of right wing religious organizations are trying to make the whole United States a theocracy…that is; religiously ruled and dominated by evangelical leaders…and real science…no longer taught in our schools.

Now, we as a country have some real problems admittedly, but compared to countries that are ruled by religionists, we are a profound “Paradise.” Can you even imagine how deeply disturbed our society would be if we gave up scientific inquiry in this country or indeed, the whole world?

Can you conceive of a world where trying to understand the physical universe would be considered blasphemy?

Perhaps punishable by brainwashing in government facilities.

Where you would be punished for trying to consider reality.