May I suggest IDiots?
by MikeGeneRichard Fortey, President Of The Geological Society Of London, lashes out at Intelligent Design, rationalizing why it is that this concept has him getting so emotional:
So that is why biologists get so mad at the propagation of ID. It wastes time. It suppresses research rather than encouraging it. It's not really a theory, it's a story. It deflects the young from asking the important questions. It serves to kill curiosity rather than encourage it. Sometimes it is right to get angry in the face of unreason. Darwinists are readily labelled. There should be an equivalent term for the proponents of Intelligent Design. May I suggest IDiots?
ID…IDiots. IDiots? 
My, now that is clever. It's a wonder that nobody else has thought of this before!
Fortey's laundry list of complaints is a function of his superficial consideration and personal opinions. What really matters is that Fortey has shown himself to be totally closed-minded to the concept of ID, as it causes him to hurl out insults in a fit of rage. Nobody like this is truly qualified to pass judgment on ID. After all, how can you objectively assess something that causes you to become so angry?
It is worth noting two things about Fortey. First, what makes him so angry is not a rejection of evolution itself. On the contrary, Fortey's face gets red at the mere idea of teleological evolution:
The crux of ID is that evolution is purposeful, and that an 'invisible hand' has operated at crucial stages to direct the course of life onwards and upwards. The Intelligence of the Designer is manifest at certain critical points - such as the creation of life itself.
I have told you for years this is not about evolution. After all, I have always approached ID as an evolutionist and you see how angry the critics get with me.
Second, Fortey takes a feeble little dig at Richard Dawkins:
In my view, God has overly got mixed into the argument. Scientists are often presented as the champions of atheism. This is typified by Richard Dawkins' views of theistic "delusion". Although I might agree with much of what Dawkins has to say, it might be that his almost theological espousal of atheism has served to up the stakes in the ID debate.
Gee, with people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and PZ Myers, isn't it amazing that "Scientists are often presented as the champions of atheism?" How can that be?! If Fortey has a problem with Dawkins, he needs to spell it out. Simply raising the two words "theological espousal" in the context where he might agree with "much of what Dawkins has to say," doesn't count. Yes, "God has overly got mixed into the argument" thanks to people like Dawkins. And people like Fortey offer nothing more than brief, one-time, mealy-mouthed complaints.
January 31st, 2007 at 7:47 am
Can he name one research project that was suppressed because of ID? I thought the story took place in an ancient soup.
Comment by Bradford — January 31, 2007 @ 7:47 am
January 31st, 2007 at 11:57 am
So, apparently whether evolution is purposeful isn't one of the "important questions". In fact, the young need to be deflected from asking that question, so that it doesn't deflect them from asking the important questions.:roll:
Comment by Deuce — January 31, 2007 @ 11:57 am
January 31st, 2007 at 12:03 pm
"Darwinists are readily labelled. There should be an equivalent term for the proponents of Intelligent Design. May I suggest IDiots?"
I appreciate that Fortey recognizes that the term Darwinist is derogatory. Hmmm, how did it become derogatory? I know, Dembski or Behe must have come up with it.
Comment by bFast — January 31, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
January 31st, 2007 at 2:35 pm
What exactly is the important question young people should be asking after they except a universe without purpose or meaning?
Comment by Jehu — January 31, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
January 31st, 2007 at 5:50 pm
An excellent point Jehu, for "if the universe has no meaning, we should never have discovered that it has no meaning; just as if there were no light and thus no creatures with eyes, the word "darkness" would have no meaning." (paraphrased from C. S. Lewis)
"Purpose" and "meaning" have neither meaning nor reality within in an accidental, meaningless universe governed by nothing but non-purposeful, meaningless laws with no foresight. How then do we arrive at the concept of purpose, if natural laws do not have purpose? If we ever think that we have accomplished something purposefully or "on purpose" then we could not have been deterministically guided by natural laws, for then it would not be "our" purpose which has accomplished anything — what we think we did on purpose would really be the result of environmental factors acting upon the Operating System of a brain which has been randomly pieced together such that it works in accordance with that which helps us to survive and reproduce (btw: this would be an amazingly grande illusion; one far better than "Jesus placing dinosaur bones on a young earth to test our faith").
In that case, our thoughts or arguments do not actually mean anything … "we" (whoever that is) only think they do because that illusion somehow helped our cave man ancestors survive and reproduce (which still doesn't explain how that illusion was born in the first place). The same is true for "meaning." We have not ever derived meaning out of anything if we are determined by meaningless natural laws.
On the topic of meaning, how do the concepts of meaning and purpose bestow survival advantage and reproductive success upon us and are we still the product of and determined by meaningless, non-purposed, accidental laws, even though those laws supposedly gave us the concept of meaning and purpose which we use to supposedly operate on such an "unlawful" level?
But, of course, we needn't attempt to resolve these unimportant questions in light of personal responsibility and its effect on society since it is "a waste of time, deflects the young from asking "important" (as judged by our supposedly randomly actualized and naturally selected brain for the purpose of survival and reproductive success) questions, and kills curiosity."
My apologies. I'm so sorry for asking such "IDiotic" questions.
Comment by CJYman — January 31, 2007 @ 5:50 pm
January 31st, 2007 at 6:11 pm
And Darwinism isn't a story, of course.
Comment by thechristiancynic — January 31, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
February 1st, 2007 at 5:45 am
What I find puzzling is the enormous streak of scientific anti-realism that all of these sorts of critics implictly indulge in.
Comment by thesciphishow — February 1, 2007 @ 5:45 am
February 1st, 2007 at 7:46 am
I'm not sure why you IDiots are asking questions. Don't you know that Fortey is President Of The Geological Society Of London? Your place is to sit there and nod. He is, afterall, The Expert. How dare you question him!
Comment by MikeGene — February 1, 2007 @ 7:46 am