Another Silly Essay
by MikeGeneThere 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.
Leibowitz tells us:
In school boards and institutions in a number of American states there is an increasingly sweeping drive in the direction that is supported by the president, and in various schools intelligent design is indeed being taught in the classrooms, alongside the theory of evolution.
First it was "whether to allow schools" to teach ID and now its about various schools that already teach ID as part of this sweeping drive supported by the president. Oh well, it's all the same in the BuzzBox, I suppose. Can someone provide a list of schools where ID is indeed being taught? The ACLU might be interested.
Anyway, from reading Leibowitz, you might get the impression that this Big Struggle dominates the American political landscape. Well, I hate to be a wet towel, but someone's gotta say it. The whole debate about ID is more of a political sideshow. I'm an American and I get the news on a daily basis. And guess what? I hate to break it to our international friends, but the issue of ID receives scant attention. In fact, I did a simple Google News search to get a snapshot of the topics of public conversation and debate:
Intelligent Design "“ 3050
Katrina "“ 404,000
Iraq "“ 164,000
Jobs "“ 94,000
Deficit "“ 20,400
Taxes - 27,300
Abortion "“ 16,200
Gun control "“ 5,280
This Big Struggle doesn't seem all that interesting to people who have to sell a product called "the News." Maybe there is a conspiracy that keeps the Big Struggle from getting more attention than gun control. Furthermore, Google News returns 98,500 hits with the search word "˜education.' Add in "˜intelligent design' and it drops to 730. It's not even a major topic in education.
Okay, enough of the hysteria. Let's look at some of his arguments:
The political-cultural struggle has become so heated that it is making headlines in the international daily press. The Haaretz Hebrew edition, for example, recently published an article by Richard Dawkins and Gerry Quinn, among the leading evolution researchers in our generation, which explains the weakness of intelligent design theory and the dangers inherent in the presentation of it classrooms in schools as a scientific theory.
Er, that's Jerry Coyne, not Gerry Quinn. And no, Richard Dawkins is not among the "leading evolution researchers in our generation." He is a celebrity scientist who popularizes Darwinian evolution and attacks religion. As for their article, well"¦.
And finally, we get to the meaty argument:
The main weakness in the idea of an intelligent designer is that it is impossible to see it as any sort of explanation of the phenomenon it purports to illuminate. The main premise at the basis of its argument can be presented thus: No reasonable person would think that the wonderful paintings by Michelangelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel could have been produced as the result of random processes, without intention and without intelligence. The same applies to the F-16 aircraft. How much more so is an explanation like this necessary for biological systems in the world, which are inestimably more complex.
No, that's Paley's argument. It looks like the guy has been relying on Gerry Quinn, Jerry Lewis, whoever, to teach him about ID.
However, this conclusion is based on reasoning based on a nonsensical premise. The assumption that an intelligent being designed the F-16 does indeed constitute a satisfactory explanation for the existence of this complex system, because we know of the existence of aeronautical engineers, in a way that is independent of our knowledge of the plane itself. The thought that the hand of an intelligent being painted the Sistine Chapel can explain the paintings, only because we possess prior knowledge of the existence of beings who can design and execute such works.
Ah, the designer-centric position in all its glory. It's a good thing we have independent knowledge about the designers of the F-16 and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Otherwise, we'd all be trying to figure out how hurricanes formed them.
Leibowitz would fail ID101. The question ID poses is whether something like the F-16 has any signature of design that is not dependent on this knowledge about the designers. In other words, ID is about trying to determine if we can detect design without leaning on the crutch of the designer-centric approach. Now mind you, it's a very difficult question to answer. Perhaps one of the most difficult questions to ponder. Leibowitz is, of course, free to throw in the towel because the challenge is too great. But why beg the question and insist the designer-centric approach is the One and Only True way to detect design?
