Politics Conservatives Debate Intelligent Design
There’s an interesting debate between National Review writers George Gilder and John Derbyshire this week (that first link is to the Discovery Institute; NR has it behind their subscription wall). The article by Gilder, who’s an ID proponent, is fascinating because it describes the allure of the ID worldview.
Like all the other crackpots, Gilder claims that science needs ID to progress. But he fell in love with ID not because he’s a scientist facing an insurmountable metaphysical wall, but because he, a conservative pundit, is uncomfortable with the thoroughly debunked notions of social Darwinism. He also disapproves of pop sociology comparing animal behavior with human behavior. When he points out that animal behavior can be cited to support any rainbow of human behavior—sexism, matrilineal descent, machismo, homosexuality—you can almost sense his horror of being associated with any base animal. Of course, he has a point: You can’t prove that human society should be a certain way just because you observe that another species is that way.
But instead of serving as a general warning about the uses of analogy in an explanatory system, Gilder immediately seizes on the metaphor of computer technology. It's a comforting notion. He wants to believe in a world satisfactorily guided and controlled by human knowledge (witness this astounding jujitsu: "I preferred Michael Novak's vision of capitalism as the "mind-centered" system [...] supply-side economics sprang from this system [...] Ultimately capitalism can transcend war by creating rather than capturing wealth"). He wants to believe, moreover, in a higher power that programs the programmers. How nice. Now DNA is just an elegant program, and we can complacently accept ourselves as direct manifestations of the will of God.
John Derbyshire, meanwhile, should have probably written a rebuttal which pointed out that metaphysical yearnings do not constitute an argument, either rational or empirical. Instead, he focuses on the material problems with Gilder's fancies. I do, however, like this metaphor:
I write the following with some reluctance. It's a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can't be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn't actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It's boring.
And the rest of it is a welcome shot of common sense. (Via The Volokh Conspiracy.)
A piece on craigslist 'best of' sums my feelings up best:
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.