I finished Neal Stephenson’s RSA encryption , which led me on a number of tangents in Wikipedia. After encounters with the Fundamental theorem of Algebra and the Fundamental theormem of Arithmetic, I surfaced for air and lit out for Blogdex. There I found a recent New Yorker: Fact article criticizing the ‘intelligent design’ advocates who are basically pushing science of dubious merit. The ‘intelligent design’ field was basically manufactured by deep-pocketed backers and has pushed to get recognition from legitimate scientists. Their fundamental gripe is with the success of philosophical materialism, i.e. athiesm. They have achieved some success in getting media attention, though the legitimate scientific community has largely panned their efforts engage in debate. The reason for this is simple: there is absolutely nothing to gain in debating a ridiculous idea. It’s the same reason legitimate science doesn’t hold debates with members of the Flat Earth Society. However, the group recently earned an article in the London Times by the venerable Richard Dawkins for the attempt to cast doubt on evloutionary theory and gain an equal footing in Kansas public school curriculum.

The Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document” is mentioned in the New Yorker article, and it’s telling: the ultimate goal of the ‘intelligent design’ is increased influence not only over academic institutions, but over legal and social matters as well. The institute later published a unapologetic rebuttal, “So What?“, without discussing the implications of their organization’s plan to hijack academic research to attack materialism.

The “So What” document brushes off the organization’s planned attack on philosophical materialism (please note the difference between philosophical materialism, the idea that the philosophical view that the only thing that can truly be said to ‘exist’ is matter, and L.A. style “you’re only as important as your possessions” materialism) haughtily, without extending its alleged basis in science to this attack. Disappointing, but ultimately probably good for proponents of sound science. Darwin’s big risk in publishing Origin of Species wasn’t his support for the already-established idea of evolution, it was his support for philosophical materialism. Materialism was roundly despised by theologians because, well, it would indicate that they’re idiots (or charlatans). Indeed, since the publication of Origin of Species, the most heated attack on evolutionary theory has come not from legitimate science, but from theists. However, the science is strong enough to be accepted as “more than a hypothesis” by Pope John Paul II.

Ultimately, I think ‘intelligent design’ should be held up in schools as an example of the desire by religious groups to legitimize their beliefs by any means necessary. Dawkins, in his article, tells it like it is once again:

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.