Another attempt at explaining the philosophy of ID

[Darth Wong]

Intelligent Design has a seductively simple mindset which appeals to "regular folk", ie- the simple-minded morons who think "American Idol" is quality programming.

Over the years, I've tried coming up with ways to express my fundamental problem with the mentality of ID, in such a manner that Mr. Average Moron would get it. This is my latest:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/In ... less.shtml

Do you think Mr. Average Moron would get this?

[Surlethe]

I'll run the essay by some people I know who advocate ID as a scientific theory and see; it seems very straightforward to me, though I hadn't thought of it in those specific terms before. By the way, didn't the idea of the uselessness of a theory which predicts anything come up recently in a debate here?

[mr friendly guy]

I like your analogy of "holes in the theory" with the trip to toronto where the route is not known. I have used a similar analogy, but with sporting events, where using anti-evolutionary "logic" we can't conclude that one side outscored the other just be looking at the scoreboard, we also must know who scored the goals and which passes were made to which player leading to the scored goals.

[Crown]

It works for me, it's actually very succinct and easy to read at the same time. It carries the point well. Of course ID theorists will just deny the whole 'history' not 'theory' bit, but hey.

[Spetulhu]

A good essay. Short enough to read through and straight to the point.

And here I thought I had a good explanation. My version just asked a counterquestion to the "if it can't be explained" parts. "Scientific theory should go for the simplest and shortest route first, right? What does this unknown Creator add to creation except one more step between nothing and creation?"

[King Kong]

Very nice; I especially liked the last part about ID being completely useless.

I am sort of worried that the average person will pick up from your car trip analogy that the evolution of life has a definite direction and ultimate destination, but it's really a very minor point and I can't think of a better analogy. I realize that you can't account for the complexity of evolution in a simple analogy intended for the layman.

[Molyneux]

Very nice; I especially liked the last part about ID being completely useless.

I am sort of worried that the average person will pick up from your car trip analogy that the evolution of life has a definite direction and ultimate destination, but it's really a very minor point and I can't think of a better analogy. I realize that you can't account for the complexity of evolution in a simple analogy intended for the layman.

He could perhaps say something along the lines of "You can't know, of course, where I'll drive tomorrow."?

[K. A. Pital]

Nice work.

Here's a hint: "intelligent design" can predict any kind of species, no matter what it looks like. This is touted as the great strength of "intelligent design" theory, but it actually proves that "intelligent design" is completely useless.

That's actually the crucial point IMHO. The whole "theory" is bullshit because it predicts nothing. People usually don't understand what's so bad about it. The best thing you did is use the Zeus analogy, where Greeks resorted to "we don't know, therefore God" explanation which didn't really explain anything, although claimed to explain everything.

Perhaps a rethorical question about where would science have been if nobody ever asked a question "how do we explain the natural processes of the world", but relied on made up superstutions instead could make it even better. But that's just my IMHO.

[Kuja]

Intelligent Design fails because it explains nothing, it only says 'we can't know and we can't learn.'

Ask any reporter, or five-year-old what the most important questions in the world are. They'll promptly respond with the classic recitation of "Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How?" ID fails to answer any of these questions to any degree of relevance.

In a nutshell:

Who? "Someone/thing." (usually God)

What? "Interfered with/spurred/engineered our development."

When? "At some point."

Where? "Here." (at least that one's somewhat accurate...)

Why? "Because he/she/it wanted to."

How? "Somehow." (AKA, Miracles)


A child upon getting these sort of answers will pout "You're not telling me anything!" and they would be right. Such nebulous replies mean nothing and carry no weight at all. It's impossible to form any kind of working theory with such half-witted and half-hearted explanations. There is no one piece of evidence you can point to and say "THIS is where everything was altered!" with any kind of authority (except possibly "Because I say so," which, sadly is good enough for a lot of Average Joes out there.)

[Darth Wong]

Yes, but every ID proponent has heard that before. They've heard the accusations that ID is vague and doesn't make any real predictions. What many of them have never heard before is that in order to make real predictions, you have to be able to say what you can not predict with your theory, not just what you can.

[Patrick Degan]

A very nice essay. Unfortunately, your average Fundie won't even go past the second paragraph. Strange ideas are too much of a challenge to the Faith.

[Frank Hipper]

Do you think Mr. Average Moron would get this?

No.

I doubt that Mr. Average Moron IDer will be able to see anything beyond the fact that this essay disagrees with him.

[wautd]

Even I get it

[Darth Servo]

While I like the essay, attempting to appeal to Joe-average seems to be a waste of time to me since Joe average is already indoctrinated and all the logic and evidence in the universe, even on his low academic level won't make him change his mind.

[Darth Wong]

While I like the essay, attempting to appeal to Joe-average seems to be a waste of time to me since Joe average is already indoctrinated and all the logic and evidence in the universe, even on his low academic level won't make him change his mind.

If he's committed to his beliefs, yes. I'm thinking more of all the apathetic slugs in the middle, who have been increasingly leaning toward the ID side of the argument not because they're zealots, but because let's face it, the ID guys are very good with rhetoric.

[CaptJodan]

No.

I doubt that Mr. Average Moron IDer will be able to see anything beyond the fact that this essay disagrees with him.

This is very true. I ran the article through my "what the parents/grandparents would say'omatic" in my head and pretty much figured they wouldn't get very far before sticking their fingers in their ears and "La la la"ing their way through the article.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good article. It's just that you're average fundie/IDer/nutter will discount or ignore what you say because it counters their beliefs.

[CaptJodan]

If he's committed to his beliefs, yes. I'm thinking more of all the apathetic slugs in the middle, who have been increasingly leaning toward the ID side of the argument not because they're zealots, but because let's face it, the ID guys are very good with rhetoric.

That may work. Let's face it, I believed in God and all that jazz before coming here, and resisted for a long time reading or buying into the logic (classic automatic defense mechansim). It might reach a few people who may be leaning towards ID, but question a couple things on it.

[Alferd Packer]

I would suggest that you take the car trip analogy out and put it first in the article. Joe Average needs to be hooked into reading the meat and potatoes of the article, and putting the car analogy first might make him go, "Ohhhhkay. Where's he going with this? I better read on."

[Dooey Jo]

I would suggest that you take the car trip analogy out and put it first in the article. Joe Average needs to be hooked into reading the meat and potatoes of the article, and putting the car analogy first might make him go, "Ohhhhkay. Where's he going with this? I better read on."

I second this. I think it would be a much better introduction, to first have the car analogy and show quickly that that is basically ID in a nutshell. Then you can proceed with the rest and show what the title of the article meant; why the theory is useless and why it is not a scientific theory. I think Mr. Average Moron would lose interest very quickly unless you start by giving a very easy to understand analogy of why something he might think sounds reasonable, is actually very stupid. Then he might be more keen to read on and accept that ID is actually nothing of what it claims to be.

Of course, there's always the risk that people will walk away and think "okay, so obviously ID is bullshit, but I still think life is way to beautful/complex/whatever to be purely random chance" (because Mr. Average Moron does not know that evolution actually is more or less the opposite of random chance). At least that's better than nothing though...

[ThatGuyFromThatPlace]

I'f we're agreeing that so far, Fundie IDers are good witht he rhetoric, and our ultimate goal is to sway the majority of the populace AWAY from ID (whiereas they are currently leaning towards ID)

what kinds of rhetoric will the IDers throw up to debunk/smoke screen this and how can it be preempted. The essay is a really god start, espescially if you take the car analogy and put it first, but once you've got them hooked with the car analogy and the 'ID is worthless' premise, you should also try to at least make an attempt at preempting the Fundie rebuttal.

[Lusankya]

You might want to explain that a theory that "proves" everything can only be used in hindsight, while a theory that explains both what can be done and what can't be done can be used to make predictions of what will happen. There's a chance that Joe Average might not understand your explanation of why a theory that explains everything is useless. You explain that 2+2=4 also proves that 2+2 does not equal 3, but you don't explain very well why this is important.

Eg. An evolutionist might look at a region where a particular biological niche isn't being filled (possibly because us humans killed whatever it was that existed there before), and will predict that some animal will evolve to fill it, given enough time. ID on the other hand looks at the niches that are already being filled and says "see, these creatures were obviously designed to fill that niche."


Incidentally (I feel I may as well add this slight tangent here), one of my friends (who in his younger days was a creationist) says that his main issue with science in his Christian days was that scientists kept on changing their theories all the time. Then he realised that they wanted to prove themselves wrong so they could make their theories more correct. I like to compare it to computers. These days we know more about electronics, so we can make more powerful computers, but that doesn't make my old Pentium II completely wrong. All it means is that we're better at making computers now.


ROAR!!!!! says GOJIRA!!!!!

[D.Turtle]

Well, there was just a documentary on TV about ID and it spreading to Europe. It was interesting seeing my parents reaction to it.

They very quickly dismissed the whole thing, because they perceived it as attacking christianity as a whole, and not only ID (or creationism, as its really called). You will have a similar reaction to your essay.

If you want to convince people who believe in ID, you have to make it clear from the beginning, that you are attacking ID and not their belief in God/the Bible. If you do not do this, then they will not listen to anything that you are saying, which would make your essay (which is good) almost useless.

Its important you do this at the very beginning, because once they have the impression that you are attacking their belief in God, they will not listen to anything you are saying, including anything how evolution does not refute or even compete with christianity.

It was a similar thing in the documentary - later in the show they had a priest explain why to him evolution and christianity do not exclude each other (ie. evolution is the physical explanation to how we became what we are, then God at some point added the spiritual element - seperating us from animals). However, since it came at the end, my parents ignored it, because the documentary was "obviously" anti-christian.

The problem is: the vast majority of people supporting ID/creationism think that evolution is anti-christian. So, as soon as they see something about evolution they dismiss it because its something fighting against their belief.

Maybe evolutionists should do what creationists did and simply call it differently. That way they might actually listen to what you are saying.

[SCRawl]

It's a fine essay, as usual. I will add that writing essays for the purpose of educating the non-scientifically-inclined (never mind hostile to anything that appears to be from the intellectual elite) segment of the population will almost always fail, but this is about as good an attempt as you're likely to see.

Personally, I always liked this analogy: calling ID a scientific theory is like calling the following a mathematical proof.

1. 1+1 = 2
2. 2+2 = 4
3. A miracle occurs
4. Therefore, E=mc^2

Math proofs would have been a lot easier if I could have invoked this kind of "logic"....

[Ravencrow]

It's a fine essay, as usual. I will add that writing essays for the purpose of educating the non-scientifically-inclined (never mind hostile to anything that appears to be from the intellectual elite) segment of the population will almost always fail, but this is about as good an attempt as you're likely to see.

Personally, I always liked this analogy: calling ID a scientific theory is like calling the following a mathematical proof.

1. 1+1 = 2
2. 2+2 = 4
3. A miracle occurs
4. Therefore, E=mc^2

Math proofs would have been a lot easier if I could have invoked this kind of "logic"....

It's not even like that. According to ID logic, the miracle is the equal sign.

[Darth Wong]

Well, there was just a documentary on TV about ID and it spreading to Europe. It was interesting seeing my parents reaction to it.

They very quickly dismissed the whole thing, because they perceived it as attacking christianity as a whole, and not only ID (or creationism, as its really called). You will have a similar reaction to your essay.

Is this really how most moderates think, or are your parents just idiots?