Monday, October 24, 2005

"Intelligent Design": Evolution In Action

There is one wonderful thing about the so-called theory of so-called intelligent so-called design.

It proves the inevitability of evolution and natural selection. In fact, we're seeing a new example emerge right now.

"Intelligent Design" not only fails utterly and embarrassingly to refute evolution, it proves by example how the process of evolution can be found not just in biological processes, but in conceptual ones, as well.

Creationism was a bad idea. Its success rate (i.e., its survival rate) in schools was poor, thanks to the exacting rigors (i.e., natural selection) of academia and the judiciary.

So what happened? Proponents of creationism (i.e., the biological hosts of the creationism meme) developed variations (i.e., mutations) that might enhance its ability to survive by propogating (i.e., reproducing) itself in a slightly (even cosmetically) different form.

Proponents of creationism even founded the misnamed Discovery Institute to hasten the mutation process. Various mutations were tried and failed. Now, however, we see one variation, "Intelligent Design," gaining some ground -- precisely because it has developed the survival mechanism of camouflage, enabling it to disguise itself (as science) to try to fool its predators (i.e., academia and the judiciary).

But now that "Intelligent Design" has been unmasked -- in other words, now that the predators have evolved enhanced sensory mechanisms to detect it -- creationism is in trouble again. So now we're at a privileged point in history when we can watch a new mutation emerge. Because now the traitors behind "Intelligent Design" have developed a new mutation designed to help it survive the increased rigors of academia and the judiciary.

This new mutation is an appeal to the free-speech value held by both academia and the judiciary. There are, of course, any number of possible rebuttals to this argument (just as predators may evolve any number of responses to the mutations of their prey). Teachers have never been free to say anything they want without legal or professional consequences. That they should be "free" to yield to religious-influenced parental and political pressure to endorse asinine, deadly and easily disprovable ideas is an absurd argument on the face of it.

Which, unfortunately, any student of political history or memetics will tell you is not necessarily a guarantee that it'll be weeded out by natural selection. Which is why patriotic Americans have to oppose it.

1 comment:

Peregrino said...

Rather than simply defend the Theory of Evolution, the scientific community has a golden opportunity, offered up by the religious community itself, to go on the offensive against religion by utterly destroying its ridiculous attempt to explain creation in terms of religious faith. I suggest that the scientific community take the Hypothesis of Intelligent Design seriously enough to analyze it in public, preferably in the populist forums of Fox News and CNN, to ensure quick distribution to middle America. There is no direction a logical analysis of intelligent design could lead other than to the discreditation of religion as anything other than an expression of blind faith. If managed well, an analysis of intelligent design could also lead to a wide and quick distribution of the latest discoveries of physics and biology, which, if expressed well, would wow the masses to a degree that religion could never hope to do, given that the miracles discovered by science can be demonstrated concretely, here and now, live and in color, complete with three-dimensional computer graphics, whereas the best religion can do is to ask you to believe. Conversely, if some religious scientist could be coaxed into attempting to show, rather than simply ask to believe, that the elbow, for example, is too complex to be explained by evolution, that explanation, expressed, as it would have to be, in scientific terms would also convert more people to a clear scientific understanding of creation from a vague religious belief than vice versa. If, on the other hand, that same religious scientist tried to dodge a scientific explanation of the elbow, whatever faith-based explanation he might give would likely fail to persuade all but the most gullible.

Newer Post Older Post Home