The Idiocy of Intelligent Design

The 'new' Creationists, have changed the label but it is the same 'act'. Creationism has been clothed in the label of Intelligent Design. In reality there is no difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. The Intelligent Design movement was started by the Discovery Institute, which was founded by ex-lawyer Phillip E. Johnson.

Phillip E.Johnson, in defending Intelligent Design, does not produce any evidence, that could hold it up as a serious alternative to evolution by Natural Selection. Rather, he uses clever and manipulative lawyer speak, that confuses and befuddles the minds of individuals, who have little scientific knowledge. This lawyer speak is very convincing to the general public. But even here most of Johnson's lawyer speak is not put forward as an attempt to prove Intelligent Design.. rather, most of his comments are in the negative, in denouncing science... In that the overwhelming body of scientific evidence in favor of Evolution by Natural Selection, is simply claimed to be falsely built up, in some kind of mass "Darwinian conspiracy" and it is Johnson and his institutes job to overthrow it.

In reality, the Discovery Institute have one goal... remove Evolution by Natural Selection from the science class and teach Intelligent Design as a scientific alternative. What this really means is: Replace a solid scientific theory with a pseudo scientific theory, that is fully grounded in religion and has no aspect in it's 'nature' that one could describe as scientific. Indeed, this is not just an attack on Evolution by Natural Selection, it is a direct attack on the scientific method.

Despite the claims of scientific integrity of the Discovery Institute, there is no science and Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Indeed, it would be a stretch to even call it a hypothesis. Intelligent Design is just creationism with another name and in reality there is nothing intelligent about it. Intelligent Design is merely substituted for Creationism, because Creationism carries connotations, which are not conducive to getting it taken seriously. Indeed, because of the embarrassing media coverage and court cases over creationism, it has become rather embarrassing to mention or push Creationism with any serious fervor.

So, Intelligent Design has 'taken the place' of Creationism and is being pushed as an alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection. The Intelligent Design advocates, love the phrase "debating the controversy" and this is how they push Intelligent Design onto the public. They make the claim; that there is a controversy within Evolutionary Theory and that it needs to be debated. They then put Intelligent Design up as an alternative. But they do so, without presenting any scientific evidence, of why it should even be considered as an alternative.

But what is Intelligent Design? - All intelligent Design really claims, is that biological organisms are too complex to have come about by 'chance' and must of been designed. They give examples of inanimate objects to draw their analogies, so they will say something like... 'look how complex a computer is, such complexity demands a designer' and 'look, here we can see that computers are design by human beings'. They then apply the same 'logic' to biological organisms, by saying they are complex, thus, they must have a designer.

Of course in one respect biological organisms do have a designer. Evolution by Natural Selection, does design, in the sense that it evolves complexity through time. But it is a bottom up designer and not a tinkering 'watch maker'. As Professor Richard Dawkins has put it in the title of one of his books, Evolution by Natural Selection is a 'Blind Watchmaker'.

The fact is that there is no scientific proof for Intelligent Design, it is really just a substitute name for God, it just sounds more credible, when creationists try to make claim for it, being a scientific alternative to Evolution by Natural Selection... Intelligent Design just sounds more scientific than Creationism, which of course doesn't sound scientific at all, it immediately draws connotations with God. But in reality, Intelligent Design is identical to Creationism.

In there attempts to discredit Evolution by Natural Selection, the fact is that Intelligent Design advocates, are not doing any scientific work, that could overthrow it. They are not presenting any evidence. Rather, they are saying, we believe that Intelligent Design is a better alternative; but that is the best they can do.

As for their claims that evolution is just a theory of chance, this is absurd of course. It is a claim made by Intelligent Design advocates and not one being made by the scientific community. Of course Evolution by Natural Selection does involve an element of chance, in the random mutation of genetic information. But the Intelligent Design advocates of course fail to go on, to say, that Evolution is also a process of Natural Selection and natural selection is the exact opposite of chance - and this process guides the random process.

In reality, the Intelligent Design advocates are attempting a political ploy to overthrow science and replace it with religion. One of their tactics in doing this, is in calling Darwinism a religion. But the error here is that individuals involved in the many different scientific disciplines, that revolve around Evolution by Natural selection are not Darwinist's in the strict scientific sense... while most of them are not hostile to Darwin, the point is that science has moved on a long way since Darwin's day... We know a lot more about evolution today than Darwin did. So to call individuals who are pro science, in that they accept the science of evolution by Natural Selection... To call them Darwinists is naive and does suggest religious connotations. This is nonsense of course. Science unlike the dogma of religion, moves on and that includes the science of Evolution, which is drawn from many different scientific disciplines, such as Microbiology, Evo-Devo, Zoology, Anthropology, Palaeontology, Geology, Genetics... Indeed, all these scientific disciplines and many more still, converge in bringing more and more evidence, that supports Evolution by Natural Selection and this evidence is coming in thick and fast.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Writer's Block CD
o Experience creativity on demand, and eliminate Writer's Block for good!

Victor J. Stenger and the Failed Hypothesis

I based the ideas in this article, on the book written by the physicist Victor J. Stenger, 'God the Failed Hypothesis'. The book is subtitled 'How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist'. This is also a modification of a debated thread within an article on this blog entitled: "Atheism or Religion?"

What you cannot do is prove 'God doesn't exist' as an axiomatic certainty. But what Stenger does and I believe he is the first scientist to do it, he comprehensively breaks down every theistic claim for God and shows why it is a failed hypothesis, using the scientific method, based on probability. So, even if one claimed nothing for atheism, not requiring it to show, rational and probabilistic decisions, this in itself is false... it suggests, that someone who loses their religion, comes at that position without any rational decisions, it is simply done on a whim?

Atheism is not simply a belief that there is not a God... That suggests that an atheist simply believes there is no God, end of argument and cannot put forth a rational argument to why they don't believe. If that were true, one could not take the Richard Dawkins position (I think he originally borrowed this analogy from someone else), which I do here and which is based on probability, that is: 'I take the God concept, to be as likely as the tooth fairy' ...I take this position, because God, like the Tooth Fairy, are both arbitrary speculations, even the false can be falsified through context, such as 2 + 2=5... This is exactly what one cannot do with an arbitrary speculation, because there is no context within reality, by which to falsify it, how could there be, it's a supernatural claim. So you have to fall back on probability.

And as for the often made claim, that one does not need tradition, or religion to believe in God, the point is that most people do. Those that simply believe in a God in the Spinozian sense, it appears what Spinoza means by God, however, is simply nature. Well, I have no qualms with that claim. Those are not the individuals, who tend to feel the need to bully others, through religious dogma. But even here, there is sometimes a problem... Intelligent Design advocates will often use this argument, to attempt to strengthen their position. This is exactly what Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute does.

Of course the argument for all encompassing God, doesn't answer anything either. It is an anti-intellectual proposition, because one end up in an infinite regress, of who created the creator and so on. The best one can do, is say: 'I believe in an all encompassing God ', end of conversation, what has one proved, nothing. Of course I believe in Spinoza's God too, if one simply means nature.

Of course, the statement that statistical probability is not necessarily proof, well, this may be correct. But unlike the belief in God, the atheist position is not dogmatic. If someone presented evidence for God, most atheists (I would hope) would be open to it, how many theists on the other hand, would read Stenger's book with an open mind? Now following on from this: because the God concept lies in the same arbitrary conceptual category as tooth fairies, that is enough on its own, not only to dismiss it as improbable, but most likely impossible. Note, I do not say false. I take the same position as Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine fame, I do not buy into the God concept, because evidence for God is so weak... Indeed, it is so weak that I go beyond agnostic; to strong atheism. But being open minded to evidence, if a theist can present good evidence (none ever has), then I of course, would have to accept it.

Note: I use the definition of Spinoza's God in this article, as it is often misrepresented by theists, as a force beyond nature, that is all encompassing... But in reality, Spinoza's God is nothing more than nature itself. Spinoza is often misrepresented as an agnostic because of this error, in fact with this correct definition of Spinoza, one could best call him an atheist and not an agnostic.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Hide Folders Pro
o Make your private Windows folders invisible, with the click of a button!

TV Documentary Review: Root of All Evil?

The Root of All Evil? ...A TV documentary written and presented by Professor Richard Dawkins (popular science writer and holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University).

The title, Root of All Evil? is something of a compromise. The TV company chose the title Root of All Evil (without the question mark). Richard Dawkins fought against this title, he argued that "nothing is the root of all of anything". Thus, Dawkins proposed a more parsimonious title, something along the lines of his new book, which is based on around the same ideas as the series: The God Delusion. The producers were adamant however, but Dawkins did received a small compromise in his favor.... They allowed him to add a question mark on the end of the title.

Dawkins starts of this two part series, by identifying that religion and science are totally incompatible. He then expands on this theme throughout the series. He goes on from here to show that the world would be a better off place, without religion.

He calls religion a "virus of the mind" and he uses the analogy of a computer virus to suggest religion spreads in much the same way as computer viruses do. A computer virus spread itself around and often does some damage on the way. Religion Dawkins tells us, "does the same thing".

He demonstrates that the young child mind is set up (for good Darwinian reasons) to believe what adults tell it. The reason being that a child cannot afford to get involved in naturalist experimentation to know not to swim in the river because of the crocodiles, there simply isn't time for such experimentation and any child who did so, would wind up dead. Thus, from here he states that the mind of a child is perfectly set up to be poisoned with "viruses of the mind".

He also demonstrates the divisive nature of religion. He draws an analogy with politics: adults would not dream of calling children little Marxists or capitalists, for example... Yet, religion for some bizarre reason is the exception. No one even blinks at the comment - "look at the little Muslim child" or "look at the little Christian child" or the Jewish or catholic child. Dawkins talks about the need for consciousness raising ...when one hears an adult tag a child with a religious label, one should consciously wince at the idea. Dawkins goes on to say that "children are simply to young to have an opinion on such matters".

Dawkins demonstrates that religious fundamentalism is on the increase, particularly in America. One interview Dawkins had was with a group of closet atheists in America's bible belt. One of these individuals compared this religious extremism to the McCarthy era, in that being an atheist may seriously damage you job prospects and Dawkins went on to call it religious fascism.

Dawkins also interviewed Christian evangelist Pastor Ted Haggard, the founder of the New Life Church. Haggard has a very large congregation and his evangelical stage shows (he himself compares them to a rock concert), draw huge audiences. Haggard is a very powerful man and has a lot of political clout. Indeed, he claims to have weekly phone calls with George W. Bush. Haggard actually threw Dawkins and his film crew of his church property, Dawkins apparently insulted him by comparing his flock to animals ...of course in the strictly Darwinian sense, that's exactly what we are, and that is all Dawkins meant .

On the whole an excellent series. My only real criticism is that most of the interviews were far to short.

How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Relaxation CDs
o Chill out to the sounds of nature, guided relaxation CDs, brainwave CDs, and more!