<$BlogRSDUrl$>                                                                                                                                                                   
The Third Estate
What Is The Third Estate?
 Everything
What Has It Been Until Now In The Political Order?
Nothing
What Does It Want To Be?
Something

Intelligent Design? Dumb Argument.

Monday, March 14, 2005
The Washington Post has an embarassingly revealing article about effort by creationists to propagate "intelligent design" theory. I'm not going to get bogged down into the specifics of the "intelligent design" position, because frankly I don't have to. There has been a century and a half of work on evolution, and all the evidence continues to support the theory. Meanwhile, no reputable scientists views intelligent design as anything more than quackery. Also, I wrote about this with my wife before.

Which is really the point, isn't it? The creationists are pushing intelligent design not because it explains things any better (my God, that would be science!) but because they are grinding an axe. They really don't want an honest critical analysis comparing evolution and intelligent design, because the the results of this debate are pre-determined. But they don't know this (or don't care) because creationists simply don't understand critical thinking. As I've written before, the entire thrust of fundamentalism is hostile to the notion of analytical thought or reasoned debate. To do so is evidence of doubt. Now for a scientist (or philosopher) doubt is an invaluable tool. All opinions should be provisional. But for a creationist, doubt is a sign of damnation. It shouldn't be any surprise that intelligent design is such a silly theory, because the people enunciating it aren't really scientists.

What I find most interesting about this article is how it lays bare the Orwellianism of the right. They want to critically analyze evolution, but haven't bothered to look at the serious flaws in intelligent design. They say that they just want a "pluralist" environment in which all ideas are on the table, but they also say they want to "kill liberalism." They say they want an open dialogue, but admit that any compromises are just temporary as they continue on their long march of instituting a theocracy. They use postmodern arguments to defend their position while essentially trying to undermine the process of rational deliberation and impose their theological position on unbelievers. Once again, the right is trying to shift their own vices onto the opposition, using liberal language to defend illiberal positions.

It really is just disgusting.
Posted by Arbitrista @ 12:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home

:: permalink