Intelligent Design and really intelligent design

Kind of interesting to see a clear and forceful attack on ID from a proponent of free market policies. It would be nice to see more friction between "conservatives" (whatever that means) and the right-wing religious sleaze that keep them in power.

There's no tension whatsoever between free market ideas and the theory of evolution. They're quite unrelated in their details. There are some conceptual similarities -- the idea, for example, that order and complexity need not be designed or planned by a conscious will but can arise in an undirected manner, is a criticism of both ID and central planning. So it shouldn't be surprising at all that people on both sides of the big-small government divide support both sides of the evolution/creation debate.

I've always been surprised at how many will attack central planning, socialism, extole the virtues of the free market, and then poo-poo evolution. The idea that the market has quite a bit in common with evolution just doesn't seem to register.

I've always been surprised at how many will attack central planning, socialism, extole the virtues of the free market, and then poo-poo evolution. The idea that the market has quite a bit in common with evolution just doesn't seem to register.

— Steve

Good to see they only took quotes from "certified non-leftists" in that article. (rolls eyes) What body does the certification? (grin)

I think asg has it right-- the free market and evolution are essentially unrelated. Or rather they are related, but only in the sense that the free market has an intrinisc evolutionary mechanism within it, at least in the loose sense: it is non-teleological and builds off of what came before. But we again have to beware of ideologically teaming evolution with political ideas, less we fall prey tot he naturalistic fallacy.

There's no tension whatsoever between free market ideas and the theory of evolution. They're quite unrelated in their details.

Darwin identified a mechanism, natural selection, that has had a range of consequences. He never endorsed natural selection. That would be like comming out in favor of the periodic table or the Pythagorean theorem. People have tried to make Darwinism into an ideology (Social Darwinism), but that's simply a category mistake.

Markets are also mechanisms, but free marketers are not descriptive scientists explaining how markets work. They are ideologues promoting a particular form of political economy for their own reasons. Whether or not laissez faire is a good idea or not simply cannot be settled by quoting Adam Smith, as Adam Smith, a moral philosopher after all, damned well understood.

Natural selection can and has turned many free living organisms into tiny, blind parasites as well as heroes and saints. Markets can and have resulted in poverty and oppression as well as wealth and equality. Natural selection and markets are neither good nor bad in themselves. They are simply ways that things work, sometimes for good, sometimes for ill, just as a hammer is a tool or a weapon depending on whether you use it to hit the head of a nail or the head of your brother-in-law.

Both are complex adaptive systems.

I was an undergraduate biologist sharing a room with a guy studying Politics, Philosophy and Economics.

After a while, I started referring to evolution as "Adam Smith's Invisible Paw".

Just that the strongest proponents of free markets and the strongest proponents of anti-evolutionism rely on each other for their political power.

Its a good article, but a slight quibble over the following:

"No serious scientist believes the literal Biblical creation account, but many earnest and well-credentialed scientists do believe in Intelligent Design (ID), as a perspective on evolution."

"Many" scientists do not believe in intelligent design. A very small number of well-credentialed scientists believe ID and a smaller number of well-credentialed scientists in fields relevant to evolution accept ID.

"Many" scientists do not believe in intelligent design.

The correct terminology is "a vanishingly small group of otherwise credentialed, but non-practicing scientists" who favor ID.

I imagine its growing at a slower rate than those new scientists who accept evolution.

Jeff's question reminds me: I found some ID site a few days ago where the author earnestly hoped evolution would die "a death by a thousand pricks."

There are about 300 people who have signed the DI letter from time to time. They're looking for 700 more, Jeff. They've been looking for about four years.

"Many" scientists do not believe in intelligent design. A very small number of well-credentialed scientists believe ID and a smaller number of well-credentialed scientists in fields relevant to evolution accept ID.

The correct terminology is "A growing number of scientists . . . "

Hey! The number's tripled!

To three.

Duke

What I want to know is, what about unintelligent design--inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessarily complicated design, which we see in the world all around us?

Well, since ID is not creationism, this implies that the Designer didn't actually create anything, only Designed it. We can also be quite confident that the Creators weren't very intelligent, and did a fairly poor job of implementing these Designs. It seems likely that there are multiple Creators (the Designer's elves?), and Multiple Designer Theory is a misnomer. The correct name is Single Designer Theory With Multiple Incompetent Assemblers, but this is too clumsy as a slogan.

That's nearly the plot of this film.

After a while, I started referring to evolution as "Adam Smith's Invisible Paw".

As a signed up member of the British Right (well, not quite signed up: I voted Tory and I hang out with libertarians), these intelligent design and creationist idiots piss me off loads. Those on the Right need to make it clear that they aren't welcome. They are, among any intelligent people, on the losing side of the debate. Politically, they're a nightmare for any government outside of Red State America.

Yet people like Paul Johnson (from The Spectator) devotes column after column to pointing out the problems with 'Darwinism'.

If the Right can't get to grips with this basic fact of life (that we evolved from other species), they don't deserve office. And I say that as a supporter of capitalist economics and good science.

Thanks EmmaPeel, I will be hanging out on your forum soon...

There are about 300 people who have signed the DI letter from time to time. They're looking for 700 more, Jeff. They've been looking for about four years.

Beware of anyone who speaks for Evangelicals. (Including myself.) :-) We're all over the map concerning politics, science, etc. What has propped up any semblance of coherence is the warfare model. Once Evangelicals discover that they can remain Evangelicals while being good scientists or Democrats, the whole jig is up and the lock by the Religious Right and Republicans will be gone. The scientific community as of late has done a decent job of doing this (notwithstanding DI's attempt of keeping the warfare model alive). It should be noted that the Republican/Evangelical alliance is only a recent phenomenon. Many Evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton in 1996.

As to Pinkerton's main argument, it should be remembered the reason why Evangelicals supported Free Market economics was because its alternative was GODLESS Communism. If the alternative was Christian Socialism the support will be more diffused. In short, Pinkerton's free market argument will probably have little force amongst those whom you could attract (moderate and progressive Evangelicals). The direct approach will be more fruitful. Namely, what you are promoting is the truth.

No serious scientist believes the literal Biblical creation account, but many earnest and well-credentialed scientists do believe in Intelligent Design (ID), as a perspective on evolution. And ID, of course, is religiously inspired.