=id05d31a
Notes on Intelligent Design, dated 31 Dec '05

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is more nearly a polemic than a considered essay,
but it may be useful in tentaively sketching some of the
methodologic parameters of the present pop_intellectual debate
over 'intelligent design'.

The opposition to 'intelligent design' seems less to be
intellectual than to be a matter of politically correct bullying. 

This is exemplified in the articles and editorial in the
'IHT'='International_Herald_Tribune', several of which I append.

Much of the criticism of 'intelligent design' is so intellectually
thin and far_fetched that it would fit best not in philosophic
debate but in science fiction parodies.  I have sketched a few
such sci_fi parodies, and will post them to this Website,
www.geocities.com/sa73122c , with docnames of form =idsf*.txt

Highlighting the preposterousness of statements by fitting
preposterous illustrations to them, even illustrations that
resemble sketches for sci_fi parodies, may be considered an
extention of Wittgensteinian ordinary_language analysis.  

That is, we show that a supposedly ordinary, reasonable statement
was in fact extraordinary, by showing that the context which best
fits it is an extraordinary and preposterous one. 

------------

In general, the criticism of 'intelligent design' is not
philosophical, much less scientific, but is merely a
pop__pseudo_intellectual aspect of a 'politically correct' -- or
rsther, s socially fashionable -- 'kulturkampf'.	

(The term 'kulturkampf' is used in Israel to characterize the
residually Marxist ideologic secularism of the self_styled 'Left'
(composed, in general, not of manual workers -- not of peasants
(except for a few increasingly affluent and automated kibutniks)
nor proletarians, but of the eastern seaboard elite, descendents
of the immigants of the late 1800's), who see themselves fighting
a last_ditch battle against 'religious coercision' from
predominantly imaginary opponents.) 

One might unfashionably term that kulturkampf, waged largely by
the secular left it what is mistakenly imagines to be
self_defense)  an expression of 'ideologic atheism'. 


#L2

(More precisely, the secularists are defending themselves
against the challenge of self_realization,  

For as PVK says repeatedly, what religion demands of us is
not, as the militant secularists imagine, subservience, but
on the contrary, self_actualization.                          
            
And religious Judaism says that as well (Rebbe Reb Zusha
said, When I get to the Gates of Heaven, They (the angeles,
the 'Heavenly Court')will ask me, not 'Why were you not more
like Moses', but 'Why were you not more like Zusha)

Amd Spinoza says it as well.    
#L1

It is not 'intelligent design' nor even 'creationism' that is
'unscientific', but rather 'Darwinism' and the little_considered
but intellectually popular notion of 'survival of the fittest'.
    

More precisely, neither side in this mock_intellectual joust is
scientific.  Both sides are brandising philosphic 'shibboleths',
or better, schema for hypotheses of limited, not absolute,
applicablility to scientifically observed phenonena.

And poor old Darwin would not have claimed more for his so_called
'theory of evolution'.
  
Clearly, Darwin's 'theory of evolution' was simply an hypothesis
that offered an apparently sufficient, but not demonstrably
necessary, explanation of his more or less chance observations on
his voyage to South America.                      

A supposed theory that claims 'absolute', 'total', 'universal'
appllcablility --   I here use those 3 terms as equivalent
alternatives with somewhat different -- 'auras''s , or
'epiphenomenal etymologic connotations'   -- and accordingly does
not imagine even the logical possiblity of any disconfirming
observations, reduces itself to a 'philosophic', or better
'conceptual' truism.

For instance, Plato's notion that all men seek 'The Good', and
that accoringly "no man does evil but through ignorance".  

That is a useful and 'ennobling' idea.
It fits some situations well -- a truly penitent born_again
Christian on Death Row for example (Kayla Thorpe, who
then__Texas_Governor Georgie Bush let go to her death because he
was on his way to White House, comes to mind ) -- and fits other
situations poorly -- eg Calligua, and his modern little
Beelzebubs.

The notion of 'evolutionary survival of the fittest' fits some
situations well -- eg the mutation of bacteria and viruses in
response to population_wide but non_universal treatment with
antiobiotics and immunizations -- and fits other situations less
well.                                                

In gaeneral, it is not clear whether temporal evolution within a
species, though it shows some ecologically adaptive features, has
been progressive, regressive, or neither.

A chef or a soldier might wish for some of the features of
prehistoric man; and might not regard the change from Neanderthal
to modern man as evolutionary in every respect.

(In fact, we see a certain nostalgia for our lost Neanderthal
features in the movie 'The Hulk', and in Jean Auel's first and
most successful imagninative re_creation of prehistoric culture,
'Clan of the Cave bear'. )

Nor has continuous evolution between species been demonstrated.

When Darwin's writings first became known to the self_supposed
intelligentsia, there was much talk of the search for a 'missing
link' between apes and man.

Of course, what the theory of evolution would lead one to
anticipate finding in residual fossil form, subject to the
erosions of time, is not a single 'missing link', but a continual
range of intermediate species. 

Very few such remanants have been found.  That this is no longer
an intellectual nor pop_intellectual issue would seem to be merely
a matter of pop_intellectual boredom, if not precisely fatigue.

Nor has it been demonstrated that such supposed evolution was
'progressive ' -- that is, a matter of continual improvement, or
continually improved adaptability to the environment.   

Nor has what is popularly imagined to be 'the theory of evolution'
offered a theoretic explanation of why so many of these earlier
and theoretically obsolute versions of man still swim, crawl, and
scurry around.

( Is it just that they are being unreasonably slow about retiring
into extinction, and leaving the ecologic field to we, the most
recent and therefore presumably fittest of the surviving species?)

To suppose that man represents the culmination of 'evolutionary
survval of the fittest' is triumphalism at best, and a bad joke at
worst.  

( GeorgieBush is currently the most powerful man in the history of
this planet (for only he could destroy it).   Must we then
conclude that Georgie Bush embodies the culmination of evolution?)

It is harder to term, regard, conceputalize that as 'evolution',
rather than as just a bit of anthropologic bad luck -- (well,
historical bad luck actually, but 'anthropological bad luck' has a
nice ring to it) -- with possibly catastrophic consequences.
                        
The notion of evolutonary survival of the fitteast presupposes
infinite random variation, and that presupposes a very long if not
infinite time_frame.

And again:  if all our present species are the culmnation of
evolutionary surival of the fittest, where is the fossil evidence
of the earlier inadequate models.

------------

Now to switch to a Constitutional aspect of this debate:           
                              
It is the prohibition of the right of states and municipalities to
teach 'intelligent design', or even 'cretionism', or even
religion, that violates the USA Constitution_al stipulation that
'Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of
religion', and also violated the Constituion's principle, included
within the 'Bill of Rights' Ammendments -- really an Appendix to
the Constitution -- that 'all rights not explicitly delegated to
the federal government nor to the State govnerments are reserved
to the people' (I'm trying to quote the U.S. Constitution from a
50_year_old memory.)


Now to switch to another point:  opponents of 'intelligent design'
refuse to give it the intellectual respect it merits.

'Intelligent desigm' is a methodologicially very carefully crafted
notion, regardless of the apparent ulterior ideologic motives of
some of its advocates.

So 'intelligent design' cannot be dismissed, as an Appellate Court
recently did (reported IHT 21 Dec '05) as an attempt to impose
upon the public education of minors, a dogmatic notion from
simplistic anthropomorphic religion.


What opponents of 'intelligent design' attatck is not that
intellectual position, but merely a 'strawman' that they have
suffed and set up to knock down.

They attack meerly the simplisitc notion of religion against which
they define their own intellectual self_image.        

(I am reminded of a remark by Dick Gregory, to his white readers,
in a Playboy interview if memory serves:  "I didn't create the
'nigger'.  You did.  And now I'm giving him back to you." (quoted
from a 30_year_old memory).
And of course that is contiguous to Sartre's notion of
'pour_autres'.)
            


It seems that the notion of 'intelligent design' is not merely a
creation of USA fundamentalist Christians, but is (to at least
some minimally_defined extent) shared by most persons who identify
themselves with religious Judaism, and with Islam, and with the
various schools and blends of conntemporary spirituality.
In short, that most religious and spiritual people accept some
notion of 'intelligent design'.             

I also occurs in Aristotle as the teleologic notion of 'final
cause', and is taken up (as is practically everything else) in
Whitehead's metaphysical schema, 'Process and Reality', though I
don't remember where, but it must be there somewhere.

So it is not 'science' that is opposed to 'creationism', but a
branch of 'scientism', which branch one might term 'Darwinism'.

('Scientism' is not science, but is rather, a pop_intellectual
notion of science.  It is, in general, simplistic and about as
close to dogmatism as anti_hierarchic atheism ever gets.  In
short, a sort of unadmitted (and inadmissable)
psuedo__quaisi__religion. )                       


(I turn now to the notion of 'intelligent design' which should hae
been at issue in the Court case:  a very carefully_crafted (albeit
in vain, for Judge Jones disregarded all those subtlties)
methodologically very cautious, tentative gambit; so far from
dogamtism that it barely got past scepticism:)
                                 
'Intelligent design' is merely the methodologic point the
'creationism' ought to be acknowleged as a logically possible
explanatory category.

The converse and counterposed position -- that the notion of
'creationism' is unintellligible -- or better, that it is a schema
which allows no intelligible exemplar -- is itself not merely
undemonstrable, but is practically unintelligble. 

So 'Darwinism' is not 'anti_religious', but quaisi_religious.
  
'Darwinism' merely substitutes an atheistic anthro_centric
perspective for the theistic anthro_morphic perspective.
                                   
'Darwinism' , like 'creationism' is 'triumphalistic'.
Both 'Darwinism' and 'creationsm' assume, not merely that man is
perfect_able -- which is the religious concept expressed
quaisi_mythologically  in the notion of 'Messiah' -- but that man 	IS (already, already!) perfected.

( That position seems to entail:  You don't get any better the
present U.S. President, or Roman Catholic Pope, or Evangelical
TalkShow Boss.   
George Bush Jr. , Pope Ratzinger, and Pat Robertson as the
culmination of evolution.                 

(And that smart_alec__quip, were it not simplistic, might be a
sort of reductio_ad_absurdum of 'Darwinism'.)

Neither Drawinism nor creationism anticpates any further evolution
of man.

(So that is WYSIWYG -- 'What You See Is What You Get' (a term from
computer graphics) with a vengeance.)

[ Curiously, PVK does apparently anticipate, and surely hope for,
further evolution in mankind -- indeed, he seems to think that
this is essential for the survival of our species.  

I suppose he means -- we've got to learn not to use our technology
in ways that risk destroying ourselves and /or our ecology.
 
And also that was the point of the movie '2001' -- which year
ironically turned out to be, not the year of Man's spiritual
breakthrough, but rather the opposite -- the year George W. Bsush
became President. 

In some remarks, (most embarassing to the Squares, but scarcely a
ripple in the mud_puddle__minds of us ex_Hippies) PVK seemed to
imply that such a benificient evolution might come about through
an actual genetic mutation, maybe stimulated by galactic if not 
quite cosmic radiation.

#L2
Well, of course ambient radiation can trigger mutation, but
it would seem that the odds of getting a helpful rather than
a harmful modification of one's genetic code are rather low.

And indeed, that would seem to be another joker in Darwin's
deck -- surely there is a much higher probability that random
mutation would cause a species to die out, from cancer and
the like, than that random mutation would enhance a species. 

I mean, it's like they said in the movie "Body Heat" -- for
every way you can pull off a successful crime, there are a
hundred ways you can screw up, get nicked, and wind up
jugged.
#L1
 
                                          
Again: Most religious people would accept the possibilty of Divine
Creation, which entails intelligent design.

(The converse is not true; 'intelligent design' does not entail an
Intelligent (much less omniscient, tho that is the usual
assumption) Designer.

That is, 'intelligent design' is predicated of the design; it does
not (as its opponents assume) presuppose Agency.  

That is, it may taken as a merely descriptive term, not a causual
assumption.
#L2

Eg, "Gosh, this snowflake sure is beautifully designed."  Or
"Gosh, the simple housefly sure is magnificently adaptive."
#L3
And as I recall, that is the sort of point that the JW's
repeatedly make in various articles about nature in
their semi_monthly publication 'Awake' (The WatchTower
Society, Bwooklyn, New York. )
#L1


Despite what its opponents assume 'intelligent design' is merely a
taxonomic not a causal nor even necessarily a teleolgic category.

So, contrary to the assumption of its opponents, intelligent
design is not in intellectual conflict with, much less in
contradistinction to, Darwinism.  

Methodologically they do not quite intersect, though they do
apparently come close enough to stimulate a dialectic.

Well, here my notes end.  So on this point, which I'm not so sure
of, I'll drop this discussion for now.

=================================================================
sa, Campra, 2 Jan '06 -- 8th day of Chanukah -- 2 teveT , I think
================================================================
=================================================================

APPENDIX:  EXCERPTS FROM IHT ARTICLES AND EDITORIAL DISPARAGING 
'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' 


(IHT editorial 23 Dec '05):

"Jones decision was a striking repudiation of intelligent design,
given that Dover's policy was minimally intrusive on classroom
teaching.  Administrators merely read a brief disclaimer at the
begining of a class asserting that evolution was a theory, not a
fact; that there were gaps in the evidence of evolution; and that
intelligent design provided an alternative explanation and could
be further explored by consulting a book in the school's library. 
Yet even that minimal statement amounted to an endorsement of
religion, the judge concluded, because it caused students to doubt
the theory of evolution without scientific justification and
presented them with a religious alternative masquerading as a
scientific theory." (IHT Editorial 23 Dec '05)

The editorial states a bit earlier:

"The intelligent design movement holds that life forms are too
complex to have been formed by natural processes and must have
been fashioned by a higher intelligence, *which is never
officially identified* 

[N.B.  In =idsf1.txt I parody the phrase which I have enclosed in
*stars*  (sa)  -- it seems to be to exemplify the simplistically
anthropomorphic view of religion presupposed by opponents of
'intelligent design' ]

[continuation of quotation from editorial:]  

but which most adherents believe to be G_d.  By injecting
intelligent design into the science curriculum, the drudge ruled,
the board was unconstitutionally endorsing a religious viewpoint
that advances 'a particular version of Christianity'."

The editorial continues:

"The judge found that intelligent design violated the
centuries_old gorund rules of science by invoking supernatural
causation and by making assertions that cannot be tested or proved
wrong.  Moreover, intelligent design has not gained acceptance in
the scientific community, has not been supported by peer_reviewed
research, and has not generated a research and testing program of
its own."

The editorial concludes:

"The religious thrust behind Dover's policy wass unmistakeable. 
The board members who pushed the policy through had repeatedly
expressed religious reasons for opposing evolution, though they
tried to dissemble during the trial.  Jones found that board
members lied time and again to hide their religious motivations
for backing the concept.                                 
   No one believes that this thoroughgoing repudiation of
intelligent design will end the incessant warfare over evolution. 
But any communtiy worried about is students' ability to compete in
a global economy would be wise to keep supernatural explanations
out of its science classes."

-------------------------------

Excerpts from IHT (Reuters) article, 21 Dec '05

"Intelligent design holds that *some aspects of nature are so
complex that they must have been the work of an un_named creator*

[ N.B. as I note above: in =idsf1*.txt I parody the notion which I
have her enclosed in stars (sa).  I parody it, not because it's
easy pickin's for a cheap laugh, but because it presuppose a
simplistic notion of the transcendental divinity in creation. ]

rather than the result of random natural selection, as argued by
Charles Darwin in his 1859 theory of evolution.

    Opponents argue that it is a thinly disguised version of
creationism -- a belief that the world was created by G_d as
described in the Book of Genesis -- which the Supreme Court has
ruled may not be taught in public schools.           

    In October 2004, Dover [ Dover School District, Pennsylvania ]
became the first school district to include intelligent design in
its science curriculum.
     Ninth grade biology students we presented with a
four_paragraph statement saying that evolution is a theory, not a
fact, and that there are 'gaps' in the theory.  The statement
invited students to consider other explanations of the origins of
life including intelligent design."

This was the ruling by Judge John Jones, U.s. District Court, vs.
Pennsylvania Area School District.

The Judge wrote a 139_page opinion, in which he stated, "Our
conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach
intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in a public
school classroom."

The IHT describes this Appellate Court decision as the outcome of
a a through , exhaustive, and definitive consideration of the
subject; but one must note that the opinion was issued less than 3
months after the Dover School Board enacted a regulation calling
for the one_time reading in 9th_grade biology class of a
4_paragraph statement stating that that 'intelligent design' had
possible explanatory significance in understanding the nature of
biologic species.

This was also described as a case of major national significance,
watched closely by at least 30 school boards.

I recall reading nothing of this case prior to reading of the
decision.  And I do read the IHT daily, except of course for the
Business pages.  Nor was a Website reference given to the full
text of the decision.

OK, no need to pussyfoot any more through that bullshit: 

The Court simply did not allow anything approaching the necessary
time for those who wished to defend the teaching of intelligent
design to present an adequate intellectual defense of it.

And now I'll go get a bowl of sphaghetti with a dollup of tomatoe
sauce at Honest George's; I've got just about 7 minutes left
before he closes shop.

================================================================= 

sa, Campra, 2 Jan '06 -- 8th day of Chanukah -- overcast but
surprisingly warm, almost up to freezing.  So I cleaned my porch.
Nico Vanzetti tells me that this a Fohn, but I still don't
understand how a Fohn does its thing.

================================================================