Teoria inteligentnego projektu

Teoria inteligentnego projektu

The Washington Times.

DARWINISM IN DENIAL?

Philip Gold
Aretea

Fifteen years or so ago, "nuclear winter" -- the theory that
the soot and ash of World War III could end human life by
darkening the atmosphere and lowering global temperatures --
enjoyed its moment in the shade. As science, nuclear winter
contained more errors than my last high school chemistry
test, but that didn't deter its supporters.

Psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton wrote that, even if wrong,
nuclear winter "serves us well" as an "idea." Opined
physicist Freeman Dyson: "Nuclear winter is not just a
theory. It is also a political statement with profound moral
implications. Survival is more important than accuracy."

And so it has gone, and goes, in field after field: ecology,
psychology, public health, fill in your own favorite here.
Over and over, scientists ignore, distort or suborn the
truth for the sake of their personal, political and
professional agendas. And now it's happening again, in the
battle between Darwinian materialism and the burgeoning
Intelligent Design (ID) movement.

At this point, we stop for three brief announcements. First,
much of the ID movement's best work is done under the
auspices of my own think tank, the Seattle-based Discovery
Institute. Second, I'm no creationist. Third, if you are,
especially if you're a creationist of the "Tell Me What I
Want to Hear the Way I Want to Hear It" persuasion, now
might be a good time to stop reading.

That said, we proceed. This new struggle has less to do with
"Inherit the Wind" stereotypes and cliches -- crusading
scientists and liberals vs. Bible-thumping buffoons -- than
with the future of scientific inquiry, indeed the very
nature of knowledge itself. Yes, many of the movement's
researchers commit Christianity on a regular basis. Some are
politically conservative. But ID's significance extends far
beyond the preferences of its practitioners. To adapt a
Clinton-era formulation, "It's the universe, stupid."

As science, ID holds that it's possible to seek and study
evidence of intelligent design in the physical and
biological worlds without positing either the identity or
intent of the designer. So far, much of the work has
centered on Darwinian materialism, which is not exactly the
same thing as evolution. No serious scientist or informed
layperson denies the fact of evolution, in the sense that
species come, go and change over time. There's a fossil
record of infuriating gaps, wondrous complexity and endless
surprises to ponder. The problem with Darwinian materialism
is that, as a matter of faith, it holds that all this
happened at random . . . and that, as a matter of dogma, no
other explanations may even be considered.

ID considers other explanations. In "Darwin's Black Box,"
Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe shows that the
"irreducible complexity" of even a single cell argues
against random evolution within the few billion years
allotted by geology and cosmology. Baylor University
mathematician William Dembski works on what he calls
"specified complexity" -- discerning design via mathematical
analysis.

His first major work, "The Design Inference," was published
by Cambridge University Press, not exactly a bunch of
creationist hooters. Last year, biologist Jonathan Wells
published "Icons of Evolution," showing that many of the
standard textbook "proofs" were ambiguous, misleading and in
at least one case, openly fraudulent. The movement has also
received fair and serious Page One Sunday coverage in the
New York Times and Los Angeles Times, as well as in
publications ranging from "First Things" to Seattle and San
Francisco city papers. There was even a conference at Yale.

The response of the Darwinian fundamentalists has been, to
say the least, vicious. Leave aside Darwinian Richard
Dawkins' generic sneer that anybody who questions the
materialist gospel must be "ignorant, stupid or insane (or
wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Mr. Behe has
been savaged by his peers. Mr. Dembski was removed from his
position as director of Baylor's Polanyi Center -- an act
described by Baylor President Robert B. Sloan as "related to
matters of internal relationships and not to his academic
work." Mr. Wells has been virtually excommunicated from the
scientific establishment, even though no one has refuted a
single statement in his book and many Darwinians have
admitted they knew about the fakery all along.

Why the denials? Why the rage? Well, scientists are human.
They don't like being told they might be wrong, or that
their life's work can be questioned. Some can't get beyond
viewing ID as back-door creationism; give in here today and
the Inquisition will be stoking the fires tomorrow. But the
most basic resistance, I suspect, involves a fear that dares
not speak its name -- the foreboding that science itself may
someday demonstrate that science is neither the sole nor
final source of verifiable truth concerning the universe and
that portion of it known as us.

For scientists who cannot bear the thought, survival may
indeed be more important than accuracy.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Oryginal:
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20010823-68231198.htm

POWRÓT