I'm Not Even Hungry

Intelligent Design = Actually, Really Stupid Design for Idiots

I like science a lot. I don't understand it, but I do like it, and I generally know who to go to when I want to know what people who do understand science think. So, I think I'm on pretty solid ground when I say that an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times from Verlyn Kinkenborg - who is not a villain from Hogan's Heroes - has it pretty much right when it says that "Intelligent design is not a theory at all, as scientists understand the word, but a well-financed political and religious campaign to muddy science. Its basic proposition - the intervention of a designer, a k a God - cannot be tested. It has no evidence to offer, and its assumptions that humans were divinely created are the same as its conclusions. Its objections to evolution are based on syllogistic reasoning and a highly selective treatment of the physical evidence... [A]ccepting intelligent design means discarding science."

If this is true, then why oh why did the New York Times have to humor the 45 percent of Americans who believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." That's nice. And by "nice" I mean nice in the sense in which Shakespeare used it. Shakespeare used it to mean stupid. That's stupid.

It's true that since last November's election, God is the new black, and that following some intense naval gazing, the Times's Executive Editor, Bill Keller, has declared that the paper needs to do more to speak to the concerns of those who dwell within the vast area - which may or may not be Mordor - between the coasts that isn't a major city. But that doesn't justify running a multi-part series on the "debate" between intelligent designers and the scientific community, as the paper of record finished doing yesterday. Although the articles provided space for scientists to explain why intelligent design fails so spectacularly, the mere fact of the article's existence helps promote the cause of these neo-creationists. When the most influential paper in the world runs treats your theory as worthy of discussion, then, regardless of its legitimacy, it becomes worthy of discussion. The constraints of objective journalism further promote this impression by providing equal time for intelligent designers. Again, even if the quality of the argument is poor, the fact of its existence constitutes a victory for intelligent designers, hence the widespread support among religious conservatives for "teach the controversy" evolution curricula.

There wasn't a controversy about evolution among people who actually understand it before the Times's series, and there isn't one now. But, with the help of a few quixotic scientists, savvy politicians, and a cowardly and complaisant media, there is enough material to create a controversy about evolution among those who don't. Nice.

posted by Tim @ 11:25 AM