Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

return-to-medeival-thought

We're probably closer on this than you sense - my primary objection to ID-iocy, apart from its wholly absurd central premis, is its surreptitious approach to by force of government impose Fundamentalist Christianity on The Nation's public education system. At root, those behind the endeavor are no different than those who peretrate terror in the name of Islam; facism is fascism, under whatever banner, and is the most severe and poximate danger facing civilization today.

I call to your attention the simple historic fact that throughout humankind's tenure on this planet, no cause been the occasion for and rationalization of more bloodshed, destruction, suffering, repression, and horror than The Will of God/the gods.

Well given that, due simply to the exponential; (so far) rise in world population,

Consider, however, in the matter of human inflicting misery upon human, the role Islamofascism has undertaken for itself over the past generation.

Granted, George, that the 20th Century saw humankind outdo itself in the pursuit and practice of atrocity and horror. Granted as well that fascist and communist ideologies were the sparkplugs of the past century's engine of destruction.

Consider, however, in the matter of human inflicting misery upon human, the role Islamofascism has undertaken for itself over the past generation. This century is young, and has yet to recognize its icons.

And note too that I do not equate Islamofascism with Islam, though I remain disappointed in my anticipation of substantive Islamic Street reprobation toward and repudiation of Islamofascism.

The evolution of clots
(Steve Jones, Telegraph Online, April 4, 2006)

Intelligent design, or ID, began as an attempt to promote creationism without breaking American laws that keep religion out of schools. In spite of the eloquent concern of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who feels that the idea demeans not science but faith, it is spreading in Britain.

I know that only too well, for I often speak to schools and nowadays, in almost every one, I come across creationists, sometimes on the staff. The notion turns on the claim that certain parts of the body are "irreducibly complex"; that - like a BMW - they will not work unless the important bits are already in place. How could they evolve from a structure that could not function because a crucial part is absent?

Darwin, as usual, got it right: part of an eye is better than no eye at all and any slight modification will improve matters until we get a reasonably effective organ. But he was writing in Victorian times, before biology became so complicated. Surely, we must now know of some structures so improbable that his plodding mechanism could never come up with them? If so, perhaps a new theory - even a new science - is needed.

The ID crew, to use Darwin's own phrase, "look at an organic being as a savage looks at a ship, as at something wholly beyond [their] comprehension". The first Hawaiians to cast eyes on Europeans were so astonished by their great vessels that they thought their builders to be gods. The ID argument is just the same. It is the logic of ignorance, idleness and incuriosity: I am very smart, even I do not understand this, so why bother to explain it except by bringing in God (if necessary under an alias)?

Scientists, unlike creationists, do not know everything, but as they learn more, every such claim has been rubbished. Evolution is not mocked but glorified by life's intricacy. ID is a bad idea, but has generated lots of good research, all of which shows how inane it is.

Queen Victoria, in an early tilt towards evolution, saw orangutans as "frightful, and painfully and disagreeably human". She herself had the misfortune to inherit a flaw in a body system much appealed to by the ID crew, for several of her descendants had hemophilia and bled freely after a cut.

The clotting machinery is an icon of just how complex life may be. Designers love it: for to staunch the flow needs a cascade of a dozen or more enzymes that work like a row of toppling dominoes. Two interacting pathways meet at a crucial junction point.

One is set off by a change in acidity after a cut, while the other acts when it picks up chemical cues from damaged cells. An injury sets off a chain reaction until the job is done and, if any step goes wrong, the whole system collapses. How could such a complicated machine evolve from simple beginnings? What use is part of a clot?

Much better, in fact, than no clot at all. Plenty of animals manage with just a few parts of the machinery and DNA shows that - like the eye - the rickety apparatus that stops us from bleeding was assembled from random bits that just happened to be hanging around.

Victoria once announced to her startled prime minister that there were three things she could not stand: flies, turtle soup and Tories. All play a part in the science of clotting. Conservative blood ran through royalty, while turtles and flies each tell part of how the cascade evolved.

Sea turtles split from our own line long ago. After a cut, their blood does clot, slowly, which is fine because their blood pressure is low. Victoria's descendants lacked a certain protein called Factor VIII. When turtle plasma is mixed with their deficient blood, a clot forms - proof that turtles make at least one of the proteins used in our own system.

Other patients with damage elsewhere in the mechanism are also helped. Many, though, gain nothing, for they have a fault in the second branch of the clotting cascade. In fact, turtles manage without that whole pathway - proof that part of a clotting system works perfectly.

As for Tories and turtles, so for flies. Swat one, moderately, and its blood scarcely clots, for it has only a very simple means of stopping leaks. In particular, flies lack fibrinogen, the protein that makes our own solid plug. They have another protein that looks much like it, but that does a different task, forming a solid lump around an invader.

At some time, it was hijacked to become part of our own body machine - and some human clotting proteins are still involved in immunity. Others, too, hold on to their previous jobs. One helps stop cancer cells from spreading, while Victoria's damaged gene descends from another that maintains the blood's iron balance. Yet another is related to an enzyme that cuts up food. The gene doubled up and the second copy took up a related task in the clotting cascade. Our plumbing is a complicated mess, but it works just as well as it needs to.

I suspect, spendi, I have studied far more of the history of war and conflict than have many, if not most, others, yourself not excluded.

By the way-there was nothing romantic in my description of the country house scene.Not a shred.

New evolution proposal puts 'critical analysis' in all subjects
(Associated Press, April 4, 2006)

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A new tactic has emerged in the debate over how to teach evolution in high school biology classes.

A House education subcommittee on Monday narrowly approved an amended bill directing the State Board of Education to approve only textbooks that "emphasize critical thinking and analysis in each academic content."

The Education Oversight Committee and the state Board of Education, which both must concur on revised academic standards, have been at an impasse over the wording of evolution standards.

The EOC wants to add language requiring educators to teach students to "critically analyze" evolution. The state board has refused, rejecting the proposed wording last month, saying the language would weaken the state's science curriculum.

"This has nothing to do with intelligent design or creationism," said Rep. Bob Walker, R-Spartanburg. "It's a way to help young people to look at things more realistically."

Walker, chairman of the House K-12 education subcommittee, is a member of the EOC and led efforts, along with Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, to incorporate "critical analysis" into the biology curriculum.

Rep. Ken Clark, R-Swansea, and Rep. Mike Anthony, D-Union, voted against the amended language Monday.

"By changing the law, are we trying to address a short-term issue with a long-term solution? What are the motivations behind it?" Clark asked. "I think it's pretty obvious, given all the talk about intelligent design."

Education department lobbyist Pierce McNair said it may not be practical to apply critical analysis to all subjects. "How can you critically analyze German, or algebra, or keyboarding, for that matter? The language of the bill may not fit the reality of the subject being taught," McNair said.

New evolution proposal puts 'critical analysis' in all subjects