Hi
On Sun, 15 Apr 2001, Mike Lee wrote:
> Does anybody else feel that we are perhaps on the verge of a
> major paradigm shift?
Only if you want to consider anti-science a paradigm shift, to
use Kuhn's much maligned term.
> This time, though, the evolutionists find themselves arrayed
> not against traditional creationism, with its roots in
> biblical literalism, but against a more sophisticated idea:
> the intelligent-design theory.
Intelligent design is a very old idea ... it was the origin of
the watchmaker analogy, as in the "Blind Watch-Maker".
> "They are skilled in analyzing evidence and ideas," said
> Rep. Tom Petri, R- Wis., one of several members of Congress
> who were hosts at the session in a congressional hearing
> room. "They are making a determined effort to attempt to
> present the intelligent-design theory, and ask that it be
> judged by normal scientific criteria."
Umh, when did support by politicians become a reasonable
criterion of scientific excellence?
> Supporters of Darwin see the intelligent-design theory as
> more insidious than creationism, especially given that many
> of its advocates have mainstream scientific credentials,
> which creationists often lack.
This is one of the consequences of allowing nonsense to
proliferate in academic settings.
> "I would use the words 'devilishly clever,' " said Dr.
> Jerry Coyne, a professor of ecology and evolution at the
> University of Chicago, speaking of the way the theory is
> constructed. "It has an appeal to intellectuals who don't
> know anything about evolutionary biology, first of all
> because the proponents have PhDs and second of all because
> it's not written in the sort of populist, folksy,
> anti-intellectual style. It's written in the argot of
> academia."
This is a large part of the difficulty and is perhaps one of the
negative sides of the push right now for inter-disciplinary
studies. That is, people can start to adopt ideas that are
beyond their expertise.
> Despite that gloss, Dr. Leonard Krishtalka, a biologist and
> director of the University of Kansas Natural History Museum
> and Biodiversity Research Center, said recently, "Intelligent
> design is nothing more than creationism dressed in a cheap
> tuxedo."
Much of this pseudo-intellectual revival is, I suspect, due to
the massive funding for pro-religious+science dialogue funded by
the John Templeton organization, an organization with which
psychology (through APA) has recently aligned itself with the
positive psychology movement. Seligman features prominently on
the Templeton homepage (www.templeton.org).
For a start at some skeptical links related to intelligent
design, go to:
http://scifidimensions.fanhosts.com/Jan01/intelligentdesign2.htm
January 2001
Guest Commentary:
Intelligent Design: The Modern Argument
2000 by Massimo Pigliucci
Here are the first few paragraphs
"Let's face it: creationists don't have an easy time claiming
academic superiority over their opponents. As much as they call
themselves "scientific" creationists (essentially an oxymoron),
and despite the existence of the Institute for Creation Research
(whatever that is), and even of creationist museums, anybody can
see that the credentials of most creationists are as good as
those of a car salesman. Yet, there is a group of creationists
(who don't actually like being labeled as such) that is
trying--with some success--to make headway in the academic world,
or at least with the media and some relatively high ranking
politicians. Meet the Intelligent Design (ID) movement, perhaps
the most sophisticated attack on modern science mounted so far.
Mind you, gaining a sympathetic ear within academia does not
necessarily imply intellectual respectability. Post-modernist
philosophers and social scientists have been littering college
classrooms and wasting a lot of perfectly good trees to spread
nonsense about the alleged equal access to truth of any "cultural
construction," putting science and astrology (or, for that
matter, creationism) on equal footing. But some ID exponents have
legitimate PhDs in science disciplines, they don't make wild
claims about a young earth or a six-day creation, and even manage
to get published by major academic presses. So, who are these
neo-creationists, and is there anything of substance to their
claims about evidence for an intelligent creator of the
universe?"
Here is Pigliucci's blunt statement about intelligent design:
* Chance, Necessity, and the New Holy War Against Science (1999)
A review of William A. Dembski The Design Inference.
Pigliucci explains that evolutionists and scientists should care
about this book because it "is part of a large, well-planned, and
not at all secret conspiracy whose objective is nothing less than
the destruction of modern science and its substitution with a
religious system of belief."
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
