The moral dimension to the ID debate exists largely because of two very different views about humanity. On one side there is the Sanctity of Life while the other side rallies around the Quality of Life. The former view is largely religious in nature, arguing that all humans have intrinsic value as a consequence of their divine origin. The other is largely secular, often defining "quality" to reflect a valued mental state "“ the use of reason unhindered by pain and suffering. It is this divide that fuels the debates about abortion, euthanasia, infanticide, human cloning, embryonic stem cell research, etc. These are all debates about who we are.

Read the rest of this entry »

I was surfing the internet for more information about the eugenicist William Hamilton. After all, Hamilton is the source for Richard Dawkins' "selfish gene" perspective, yet eugenics is another topic Dawkins steers clear of. I stumbled across this article by Steve Sailer. Sailer is another fan of Hamilton and scolds Dawkins for not being willing to follow his Darwinian logic all the way to the end. You'll have to read the article for yourself.

Sailer is also a eugenicist. You can familiarize yourself with his perspective from a speech he gave to Lady Thatcher at the Hudson Institute conference.

Sailer also heads up something called The Human Biodiversity Institute. Their mission is clearly eugenic in essence:

The constant innovation in genetics and reproductive technologies is a sign that the evolution of the human race is about to accelerate almost unimaginably. Thus, we can no longer afford the comforting illusion that evolution doesn't really apply to humanity. We desperately need to understand the social impact of the various possible changes in our gene frequencies. Fortunately, we have a huge storehouse of data available to base predictions upon: the vast amounts of existing biological diversity. Unfortunately, we now discourage serious thinkers from examining it. Our only chance of foreseeing the potential world-shaking impact of Galtonian artificial selection rests in the honest, unstifled study of Darwinian natural selection. God help us if we don't start helping ourselves.

Okay, but then things get interesting.
Read the rest of this entry »

In his article on ID, Ker Than quotes Republican Senator Rick Santorum, who explains his interest in the debate:

It has huge consequences for society. It's where we come from. Does man have a purpose? Is there a purpose for our lives? Or are we just simply the result of chance? If we are the result of chance, if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us.

Yet as we have seen, evolution itself is not the fulcrum. Neither is science. The fulcrum is the theological and philosophical inclinations a person brings to science and evolution. Yet why is it that evolution, and science, are constantly entangled in the debate about morality?

Read the rest of this entry »

Denyse O'Leary has found this t-shirt for kids:

The sign on the sleeve reads: "babyPolitico: activism starts early". Now, we all know that Dawkins thinks that it's "a kind of child abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child". I wonder if he's going to do anything about this?

I'd like to take a closer look at Ker Than's article on ID as it relates to the whole issue of morality and evolution. I don't think I have ever addressed this issue, as morality is not relevant to my interest in ID. Nevertheless, I think it is a major component that drives the socio-political expression of ID.

Than writes:

While denying that ID is religiously motivated, ID proponents often portray evolution as its own kind of religion, one that is atheistic and materialistic, whose converts no longer cast their eyes towards heaven but who rather seek to build heaven here on Earth using their scientific knowledge.

The implication is that by destroying the idea that Man is the paragon of God's creation, evolution robs life of meaning and worth. And by limiting God's role in creation, evolution opens up the terrifying possibility for some that there is no God and no universal moral standard that humans must follow.

He then turns to atheist Barbara Forrest:
Read the rest of this entry »

Over at LiveScience.com, staff writer Ker Than gives us the usual presentation in an article entitled Intelligent Design: An Ambiguous Assault on Evolution.

We get the standard Wedge-Centric perspective that is too boring to comment on. Then there's the usual "curiosity" about design proponents not identifying the designer as God. I've already explained the logic here. But Than peddles to the conspiracy theorists with this little "observation":

When speaking or writing for Christian audiences, however, ID proponents are more candid. Some have openly speculated about who they think the wizard behind the curtain really is.

I suggest Than actually read the first book that outlines a case for ID "“ Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box. The book was put out by a secular publisher, remains the best selling ID book, and Behe clearly stated that he thinks the designer is God. That Behe personally believes the designer is God is about as significant as Ken Miller thinking God is behind natural selection. The point that matters is that scientists like Behe and Minnich understand that any current inference to design doesn't deliver up the identity of the designer. It's simply the logic of the argument.

But things get more interesting.
Read the rest of this entry »

There are a lot of amateurs out there commenting on intelligent design. The latest comes from Elia Leibowitz, the chairman of the astrophysics department at Tel Aviv.

Leibowitz writes:

There is a big struggle raging now in the United States over the question of whether to allow the schools in the various states to present the "intelligent design" hypothesis - alongside the Darwinist picture - which competes with the theory of evolution as an explanation of the complexity of nature in the world.

I'm not quite sure where this big struggle is. I do confess I don't keep up with all the details of the socio-political show, but the only place I know of that is considering teaching the "intelligent design" hypothesis is Dover, PA, that massive metropolis with a population of almost 1900 people. Yep, that's one national "big struggle."

But hold on, now.

Read the rest of this entry »

I have already spoken to some ways in which intelligent design might interface with evolution here and here. The plausibility of such a hypothesis continues to grow.

[HT to nobody and deepred on ARN].

Certainly when Nobel Laureates speak we should listen. They have, after all, been recognized as powerful thinkers who made remarkable contributions to science. Does the fact that 39 Noble Laureates have come out in support of Darwinian evolutionary theory mean there are no thinkers in this category who oppose Darwinian theory with equal force and expertise. No. Presumably Elie Wiesel who apparently spearheaded this letter contacted many Nobel Laureates to ask them to sign up. It would be interesting to see the list of those who declined. Given the current climate would many of them be willing to express their misgivings concerning Darwinian theory. Not likely. There is, however, one who does so very eloquently.

Read the rest of this entry »

An AP story from late last month describes the way Oxford University is turning out to be the focal point in battle between science and the animal rights movement. According to the article:

They firebombed an Oxford University boathouse, planted explosives beneath cars and appear to have stolen the remains of an 82-year-old woman.

Now animal rights activists are vowing to turn Oxford into a battleground in order to stop construction of a new biomedical research centre "” and the university is promising it will be built.

Read the rest of this entry »