Straw in the wind: Science writer tries to figure out why intelligent design theory doesn't go away

In "What neo-creationists get right" in The Scientist (June 20., 2008), Gordy Slack, an Oakland-based science writer who is not sympathetic to intelligent design theory attempts to explain why it can't be stamped out, and makes a
few reasonably good guesses, for example,

When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they're right. A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn't know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They're still correct when they say evolution happens. But I'm afraid they're wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots. Ideological zeal isn't incompatible with good science; its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory's explanatory power.

Actually, I hope someday to prove that the most raucous Darwinists have had their bar bills paid by the evil Discovery Institute (intelligent design central) for many years. They have done more to promote intelligent design than many of its strongest proponents.

Unfortunately, Slack confuses science with materialism, which means that most of his other observations are forgettable - but it may be worth the trouble of free registration to view the article.

If you are wondering why there is an intelligent design controversy, read

Summer reading: Naturalism as self-defeating?

A friend recommends this book, World Without Design by Michael C. Rea.

Philosophical naturalism, according to which philosophy is continuous with the natural sciences, has dominated the Western academy for well over a century; but Michael Rea claims that it is without rational foundation, and that the costs of embracing it are surprisingly high. The first part of World Without Design aims to provide a fair and historically informed characterization of naturalism. Rea then argues compellingly to the surprising conclusion that naturalists are committed to rejecting realism about material objects, materialism, and perhaps realism about other minds.

Well, that's pretty much what I found while doing research for The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul. Anyway, from what I can tell, the scruffier brand of naturalists/materialists hate the guy's arguments, so he must be on to something.

Free excerpt from Michael Ruse's Evolution-Creation Struggle

According to Harvard University Press's blurb, in his latest book, Darwinian evolutionist Michael Ruse,

a preeminent authority on Darwinian evolutionary thought and a leading participant in the ongoing debate, uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking. Exploring the underlying philosophical commitments of evolutionists, he reveals that those most hostile to religion are just as evangelical as their fundamentalist opponents. But more crucially, and reaching beyond the biblical issues at stake, he demonstrates that these two diametrically opposed ideologies have, since the Enlightenment, engaged in a struggle for the privilege of defining human origins, moral values, and the nature of reality.

Ruse has addressed this theme before in his The Evolution Wars, where he discussed the way in which museums have functioned as temples of naturalism. Anyway, have a look at the free excerpt from the new one,
Evolution-Creation Struggle.

Ruse promises, in the excerpt,

I will tell a tale of evolution and religion that will hold surprises for all of today’s controversialists. The full story is far more complex than any of us, including (especially) us evolutionists, have realized. The dispute, as we shall see, is more than merely a matter of right and wrong. At some deeper level, it involves commitments about the nature of reality and the status and obligations of humans in this reality. In particular, I argue that in both evolution and creation we have rival religious responses to a crisis of faith—rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates, and above all what theologians call rival eschatologies—pictures of the future and of what lies ahead for humankind. But these rivals are blood relatives. And, paradoxically, the bitterness of the controversy can be traced in large part to the fact that this is a family feud. The two sides share a common set of questions and, in important respects, common solutions. With these things uncovered, I will offer what I hope are fertile and constructive suggestions for moving forward.

The excerpt then gallops through the history of Christianity from its origin to the present day, attempting to explain how many philosophers of recent centuries became skeptical of Christianity and theistic religion generally. I would find it hard to evaluate the progress of the argument in the excerpt because he deals with so much in such short order that the scenery goes by too fast for me, but you be the judge.

(Note: If this is not the story you were looking for, see the Blog service note below or the stories listed in the sidebar.)

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Blog service note: Did you come here looking for any of the following stories?

- The op-ed by Catholic Cardinal Schonborn in the New York Times? Note also the Times's story on the subject, some interesting quotes from major Darwinists to compare with the Catholic Church's view, as expressed by the Cardinal, and an example of the kind of problem with Darwinian philosophy that the Cardinal is talking about.

- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids you to see the film, in case you get too excited, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

Blog policy note: This blog does not intentionally accept fully anonymous Comments, Comments with language unsuited to an intellectual discussion, URLs posted without comment, or defamatory statements. Defamatory statement: A statement that would be actionable if anyone took the author seriously. For example, someone may say “O’Leary is a crummy journalist”; that’s a matter of opinion and I don’t know who would care. But if they say, “O’Leary was convicted of grand theft auto in 1983,” well that’s just plain false, and probably actionable, if the author were taken seriously. Also, due to time constraints, the moderator rarely responds to comments, and usually only about blog service issues.

No, some people do not believe there is such a thing as free will

Sometimes, people who are arguing about intelligent design use the term “naturalists” to describe people who believe that there is no design in the universe (though others insist that “materialists” is a more correct term.)

There are indeed people who are organized, believing naturalists, and one thing you need to know about them is that they do not believe that there is any such thing as free will.

Now, much as I disagree with the naturalists, I think that if you are a strict Darwinist, you should reasonably be a naturalist and should not believe that there is any such thing as free will.

Of course, you’re wrong, but the Internet is a free country, and you can be wrong on your own time and — within reason — in the comments section of my blog. (I remove obsessive attacks on individuals and too many posts by one person in general.)

To find out more about my book on the intelligent design controversy, go to By Design or by Chance?