If you think being anti-OOP is controversial....

--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

As some of you may have suspected, anything as complex as the "intelligent design" movement couldn't have come about by mere chance, heh-heh. [link|http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/068482471X/qid=1133834952/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-9399079-7616953?s=books&v=glance&n=283155|"Darwin's dangerous idea"] frightens a certain segment of the influence mongers who fear that its implications will further debauch the morals of the polyester proletariat, perhaps even to the point of causing them to question their betters. From [link|http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml|an article] published in the palmy mid-nineties:

What's going on here? Opponents of Darwin traditionally have been led by biblical literalists, whose "arguments" on the subject have been generated mostly by the Book of Genesis. Now their camp includes some of the most prominent thinkers in the conservative intellectual movement.

As a matter of historical curiosity, this new turning of neocon eyes toward heaven comes just as Pope John Paul II has officially recognized that "the theory of evolution is more than an hypothesis." Indeed, it comes as evolutionary thinking itself is shedding considerable light on an array of questions and problems, from brain growth to the development of immune systems, from sociobiology to economics, from ecology to software design. Such research is yielding anti-designer results. F.A. Hayek long ago recognized the phenomenon of "spontaneous order" and described how it arose in markets, families, and other social institutions. Now, ingenious computer models are confirming Hayek's insights. It is increasingly obvious that social systems, from commerce to language, evolve and adapt without the need for top-down planning and organization. Order in markets is generated through processes analogous to Darwinian natural selection in biology. In other words, we can indeed have apparent design without a designer; the world is demonstrably brimming with just such phenomena.

...

Gross believes that the conservative attack on Darwin may be a case of tactical politics. Some conservative intellectuals think religious fundamentalists are "essential to the political program of the right," says Gross. As a gesture of solidarity, he says, these intellectuals are publicly embracing arguments that appear to "keep God in the picture."

The end of the Cold War may also be a factor. Marx fell with the Soviet Union; Freud has been discredited by modern psychology and neuroscience. The last standing member of the 19th century's unholy materialist trinity is Darwin. Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson, author of Darwin on Trial, makes the connection clear: "Darwinism is the most important of the materialist ideologies--Marxism, Freudianism, and behaviorism are others--which have done so much damage to science and society in the 20th century." Kristol agrees. "All I want to do," he told his AEI audience, "is break the bonds of Darwinian materialism which at the moment restrict our imagination. For the moment that's enough."

But something deeper seems to be going on, and the key to it can be found in Bork's assertion in his book that religious "belief is probably essential to a civilized future." These otherwise largely secular intellectuals may well have turned on Darwin because they have concluded that his theory of evolution undermines religious faith in society at large. Of course, this is not a novel thought. Many others have arrived at the same conclusion. Conservative activist Beverly LaHaye, a biblical literalist who is president of Concerned Women for America, puts the matter directly: "If the biblical account of creation in Genesis isn't true, how can we trust the rest of the Bible?"

Kristol and his colleagues may worry that once this one thread is pulled from the fabric of religious belief, perhaps the whole will become unraveled, with grave social consequences. Without the strictures and traditions imposed by a religion that promises to punish sinners, the moral controls that moderate our base desires will lose their validity, leading ultimately to moral chaos. Ironically, today many modern conservatives fervently agree with Karl Marx that religion is "the opium of the people"; they add a heartfelt, "Thank God!"

...

Kristol has been quite candid about his belief that religion is essential for inculcating and sustaining morality in culture. He wrote in a 1991 essay, "If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded--or even if it suspects--that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe."

Another prominent neoconservative, Leon Kass, author of Toward a More Natural Science (1985), and a member of the University of Chicago's prestigious Committee on Social Thought, also believes that evolutionary theory poses a threat to social order: "[T]he creationists and their fundamentalist patrons...sense that orthodox evolutionary theory cannot support any notions we might have regarding human dignity or man's special place in the whole. And they see that Western moral teaching, so closely tied to Scripture, is also in peril if any major part of Scripture can be shown to be false."

At the heart of the neoconservative attack on Darwinism lies the political philosophy of Leo Strauss. Strauss was a German political philosopher who fled the Nazis in 1938 and began teaching at the University of Chicago in 1949. In an intellectual revolt against modernity, Strauss focused his work on interpreting such classics as Plato's Republic and Machiavelli's The Prince.

Kristol has acknowledged his intellectual debt to Strauss in a recent autobiographical essay. "What made him so controversial within the academic community was his disbelief in the Enlightenment dogma that `the truth will make men free.'" Kristol adds that "Strauss was an intellectual aristocrat who thought that the truth could make some [emphasis Kristol's] minds free, but he was convinced that there was an inherent conflict between philosophic truth and political order, and that the popularization and vulgarization of these truths might import unease, turmoil and the release of popular passions hitherto held in check by tradition and religion with utterly unpredictable, but mostly negative, consequences."

Kristol agrees with this view. "There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people," he says in an interview. "There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

Sound like anyone we know? Hint: who's a certain bot's [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=119958|favorite "phil"osopher?]

cordially,

Because there are various incarnations of ID floating around, I felt I should make clear the working version I am using here.

Intelligent Design (ID) is based on the observation that the only fully observed source of complex devices or machines is from intelligent designers: our fellow humans who engineered and built them. Thus, it is reasonable to suspect or at least inquire that complex life forms were perhaps also made by intelligent being(s).

The intelligent being(s) could be aliens, humans who came back in time, smart robots, being(s) with god-like powers, etc. ID does not actually attempt to identify a specific intelligence at this stage. Further, the intelligence does not have to be supernatural or omnipotent to qualify as a potential designer. In fact, the designer(s) may be sloppy, lazy, have limited skills, use trial-and-error, etc.

You need to define your terms. Is a carbon-60 molecule "complex"?

[image|http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/assets/images/2003/May-09-2003/BuckyballEDU2.jpg|0|Carbon 60 Buckyball|300|304]

It looks pretty complex to me. It's man-made, but it's not made by people picking up individual atoms and arranging them just-so. It's not "designed", though it might appear to be. It forms naturally under the appropriate conditions. By naturally, I mean that the carbon bonds arrange themselves to minimize their energy without any supernatural assistance. The result is the soccer-ball shaped "Buckyball". No ID is needed.

ID is the supposition that says: "I can't figure out how this was done, therefore some being ('God', but I can't say that word) did it. That being cannot be studied by science. Since nobody knows, at this moment exactly how this thing was done, I can argue that my religious construct is just as good as science and get equal billing."

ID is not science. It's not a "[link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science|soft-science]" either - it's religion. It's damaging to science and should be fought vigorously.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!