Creationism by any other name…
Using seductively simplistic arguments such as this,
Someone who finds a rock can easily imagine how wind and rain shaped it. But someone who finds a pocket watch lying on the ground instantly knows that it was not formed by natural processes.
With living organisms so much more complicated than watches, […] “The marks of design are too strong to be got over.”
a small (but very vocal) minority of scientists is arguing for the inclusion of Intelligent Design in school curriculums across the US. The New York Times is running a series of articles on this, and if you read the first two, you realize how hollow the arguments favoring Intelligent Design are. Carefully placed could-not-haves and usually-ares might sway public opinion, but innuendo can’t be a substitute for scientific rigor. If human imagination is the yardstick, any counter intuitive scientific discovery can be disputed — Geocentrism anyone?
In one often-cited argument, Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University and a leading design theorist, compares complex biological phenomena like blood clotting to a mousetrap: Take away any one piece — the spring, the baseboard, the metal piece that snags the mouse — and the mousetrap stops being able to catch mice.
Similarly, Dr. Behe argues, if any one of the more than 20 proteins involved in blood clotting is missing or deficient, as happens in hemophilia, for instance, clots will not form properly.
Such all-or-none systems, Dr. Behe and other design proponents say, could not have arisen through the incremental changes that evolution says allowed life to progress to the big brains and the sophisticated abilities of humans from primitive bacteria.
These complex systems are “always associated with design,” Dr. Behe, the author of the 1996 book “Darwin’s Black Box,” said in an interview. “We find such systems in biology, and since we know of no other way that these things can be produced, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, then we are rational to conclude they were indeed designed.”
7 Responses to “Creationism by any other name…”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I’ve been following the series with interest myself.
I find the idea of Intelligent design ridiculous, but have for long been curious why it matters so much to some people to know that God personally created them. I came across the best argument why I should even bother to listen to the ID folks from a totally unexpected source — AS Byatt’s Angels & Insects. Am half-way through the book at the moment, but would reccommend you give it a shot.
Not sure if Hinduism says anything certain about the creation of man & woman, but the one thing I did find from a completely unscientific survey conducted among friends — we don’t give a damn… I’ve tried thinking abt what in Hinduism makes us so comfortable with leaving the question of creation ambiguous, but don’t have an answer…What do you think?
I think that’s true of most people — irrespective of religion. (at least the ones I’ve come across). It is only a small minority (I’d like to think) that wants to wage this battle — it is quite sad that an established scientific truth is on the defensive now because of this.
I’ve also heard from quite a few friends (my wife included) that the Dasavathars actually represent evolution, but I am not too convinced of that either. Reminds me of something:
There was an Auvaiyar poem that went,
“Anuvai Thulaithu Yezh Kadalai Puguthi
Kurugath Tharitha Kural”
Something that praises the Thirukkural for its brevity. A tamil teacher tried to convince us that the use of the word “añu” here was a reflection of how advanced Tamils were — Auvaiyar knew atoms! I’ve noticed that many such “we were so advanced early” claims are founded on frivolous coincidences.
Yeah — I’ve heard the Dasavathar spiel myself. And I’m not convinced either. And the “evidence” that folks present to assert the antiquity of Tamil is always interesting
For a change, I want to believe them, which of course, makes me suspicious right away. (Clearly I have trust issues that I need to work on.)
Did you read this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/weekinreview/21mishra.html) — has a few more examples of how Hindus apparently reconcile themselves with advances in science.
“A tamil teacher tried to convince us that the use of the word “añu” here was a reflection of how advanced Tamils were — Auvaiyar knew atoms!“
Reminds me of Arundhati Roy’s retort to such idiotic claims about alleged references to everything from nuclear wars to space-crafts in hindu texts…“If you looked hard enough, you’ll find even Coke mentioned in the Hindu texts…”
DoZ, that was a good article — it is true (& good) that we reconcile to most scientific advances somehow — you hardly see any protests against technology based on religious grounds in India.
The main reasons why this is happening in the US is due to the resurgence of Evangelism coupled with the realisation that evolution effectively rules out God’s hand. The fact that life just happened and that there might be no divine reason for the emergence life is disturbing to many people — probably because it vitiates all their superstitious claims.
Kansas has been at the receiving end on ID related issues. Now looks like the Univ of Kansas has had enough. Check this out.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Intelligent_Design_Course.html
I especially loved the name of the course. “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies”. Ouch!!