The first Serial at my new site. It's like breaking in new shoes.
I have watched this fiasco, the discussion about intelligent design, in wonder. Somehow there is serious consideration of this as science. America is pushing hard to claim the title of "Christian nation." Creationism has muddled itself with science by using big words and quoting a few scientific equations, yet it remains creationism, a religious dogma. Having grown weary of the sanctimonious chatter and meaningless double talk, I thought perhaps I should chime in. I started a response that would otherwise have been a single post… but it took on a life of its own.
This will be my evaluation of intelligent design, the new creationism. I will undoubtedly offer opinion, but I will also give careful thought to aspects such as coincidental physics, scientific issues with the theory, what constitutes a real scientific theory, fun word games, and what I see as implications for America.
Introduction
You've heard it. Perhaps it was in reference to your local school district's curriculum. Perhaps your pastor mentioned it during a Sunday sermon. It could have been something you heard while flipping through the TV channels late one evening. There could have been a cursory mention of it in the morning paper. Maybe it's something you believe.
It's intelligent design, and it's slithering its way in from every dark corner. It wants to invade public classrooms disguised as real science. It denies its roots in the conservative Christian movements of the modern era. Politicians and zealots proclaim its merits while denying any opinion about who or what the designer might be; the vast majority of these people also make undeniable statements to their followers and constituencies that they are certain the designing force is the Christian god. Did I mention they also deny it violates the separation of church and state when taught in public schools? It relies on some curious but otherwise unexciting relationships in physics which, while providing a certain target for curiosity seekers and conspiracy theorists, does not support the formation of a new inception theory for the universe, especially a "theory" which is nothing more than freshly renamed creationism.
Reference
Before any serious discussion of intelligent design can take place, one must first understand some of the major topics in play.
Coincidental Physics
Editor's Note: This post is about some important cosmological numbers and the curious relationships which exist between them. The numbers used are quite exact in terms of the math involved, but the relationships I will discuss are not so exact. You may lay aside your scientific calculator during this exercise; there will be no calculations of decimal places. The relationships cited are in terms of "orders of magnitude" rather than precise numeric values. In a study of this type, exact values are not indicative and do not provide any level of certainty, whereas factors of 10 or 100 are of marginal interest, and factors of 1,000 or higher are significantly more noteworthy.
As I previously mentioned, intelligent design proponents have included the anthropic principle as part of the argument which states that some aspects of the universe are simply too complex to have been the result of chance, therefore a designer is necessary, especially with regards to the development of life and, more importantly, humans. Physics happens to be one of my strengths, so I feel compelled and qualified to examine this more closely.
Arguing Semantics
Proponents of intelligent design (ID) make a sport of arguing semantics. With no evidence whatsoever to support their point of view, they are left with only one option: try to punch holes in the opposition’s idea by playing word games. This approach does not lend itself to solidifying a scientific premise but instead only provides amusement.
And advocates of ID provide significant amusement, most often demonstrated in their feeble attempts to debate the issue on a scientific level. Lacking any scientific evidence to support ID is the greatest flaw, of course, but the second greatest is an inability to compete in the scientific realm. That shortcoming forces them instead to argue. You see, arguing is not debating: it is nothing more than attacking a position with whatever ammunition can be attained easily. Sadly for ID supporters, this means confuse the issue with gibberish and malarkey.
While I don’t claim to have all the answers, and I certainly don’t claim to know all of the silly nonsense spewed by IDiots, herein I wish to cover some of the more common and laughable aspects of the anti-evolution movement.
