![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsOne of the key points I try to make to proponents of intelligent design is that, so far, ID hasn't demonstrated a lick of utility. No new medicines, surgical procedures, agricultural products, or epidemiological interventions have emerged in which the authors and inventors credited the "design inference" as fundamental to their work.
(There are three frequent rejoinders to this point.
The first, and most idiotic, is "prove there haven't been." It is no more up to me to prove there have been no such studies that it's up to me to prove there are no studies accrediting psychic messages from Jovian space aliens; it is up to the claimant of ID's utility to show where and when ID has been useful. So far, they have failed.
The second is "is too!" Frequently, design proponents point to biomimetics as a place where "designs from nature have proven useful." The problem is that this is a backward inference: we are designing things to mimic the best biology out there. We know human beings are intelligent; the failure here is to understand that because evolution has come up with a better physical or biochemical mechanism than we can come up with ourselves does not mean that evolutionary outcomes are the product of a conscious designer. Biomimemetic designs frequently pare down the biology to the best physical systems we can derive, but the coopted, unnecessarily messy biology is frequently left out.
The third is "Darwin isn't useful, either." Orac has an entire section of his blog documented the way medical researchers use evolutionary biology every day in their quest to overcome microbial resistance and understand cancer. Understanding the evolutionary pressures on the fire ant has proven to be a key to dealing with infestation, an important research topic for agriculture. The nested interactions of geology, evolutionary biology, and even cosmology all provide cross-verification that all three sciences are on the right track. There's even a journal, Evolutionary Applications, dedicated to demonstrating the utility of evolutionary theory to our understanding and control of the world around us.)
ID proponents who want their stuff taught in public schools need to understand that their work is detrimental to the future well-being of their country. Every kid who is taught intelligent design, who decides that he doesn't need to know anything more about biology other than "God did it," is one less mind we have dedicated to solving the problems facing the next generation. Whole classrooms of potential Norman Borlaugs, Robert Jarviks, Jonas Salks, Linus Paulings, and Ignaz Semmelweises will be wiped out, if they haven't been already by the teachings of their churches.
This is a simple fact, and it will remain a fact until someone actually shows a breakthrough in biology predicated on the assumption that existing biology was designed.
I was remined of this when I read a quote from an article about President Obama's search for a national information technologies officer. Sophie Vandebroek is the chief technology officer (CTO) at Xerox corporation, and her quote brings home the other half of the puzzle. If we're not going to grow our own researchers, we have to import them from other places. But they're not going to come here, not to stay, not if they know their kids, going to our schools, are going to get spoon-fed worthless nonsense. She wrote:
There is no controversy: intelligent design has not yet provided a useful scientific insight, and has not earned its place as a "science" deserving of attention in pre-college education. Ignore the handwaving about how Pasteur and Newton were Christians. They achieved their breakthroughs despite, not because of, their religious beliefs. The only controversy is the one the religious right wants to make: the controversy ought to be that they're being allowed to set the science agenda at all.
(There are three frequent rejoinders to this point.
The first, and most idiotic, is "prove there haven't been." It is no more up to me to prove there have been no such studies that it's up to me to prove there are no studies accrediting psychic messages from Jovian space aliens; it is up to the claimant of ID's utility to show where and when ID has been useful. So far, they have failed.
The second is "is too!" Frequently, design proponents point to biomimetics as a place where "designs from nature have proven useful." The problem is that this is a backward inference: we are designing things to mimic the best biology out there. We know human beings are intelligent; the failure here is to understand that because evolution has come up with a better physical or biochemical mechanism than we can come up with ourselves does not mean that evolutionary outcomes are the product of a conscious designer. Biomimemetic designs frequently pare down the biology to the best physical systems we can derive, but the coopted, unnecessarily messy biology is frequently left out.
The third is "Darwin isn't useful, either." Orac has an entire section of his blog documented the way medical researchers use evolutionary biology every day in their quest to overcome microbial resistance and understand cancer. Understanding the evolutionary pressures on the fire ant has proven to be a key to dealing with infestation, an important research topic for agriculture. The nested interactions of geology, evolutionary biology, and even cosmology all provide cross-verification that all three sciences are on the right track. There's even a journal, Evolutionary Applications, dedicated to demonstrating the utility of evolutionary theory to our understanding and control of the world around us.)
ID proponents who want their stuff taught in public schools need to understand that their work is detrimental to the future well-being of their country. Every kid who is taught intelligent design, who decides that he doesn't need to know anything more about biology other than "God did it," is one less mind we have dedicated to solving the problems facing the next generation. Whole classrooms of potential Norman Borlaugs, Robert Jarviks, Jonas Salks, Linus Paulings, and Ignaz Semmelweises will be wiped out, if they haven't been already by the teachings of their churches.
This is a simple fact, and it will remain a fact until someone actually shows a breakthrough in biology predicated on the assumption that existing biology was designed.
I was remined of this when I read a quote from an article about President Obama's search for a national information technologies officer. Sophie Vandebroek is the chief technology officer (CTO) at Xerox corporation, and her quote brings home the other half of the puzzle. If we're not going to grow our own researchers, we have to import them from other places. But they're not going to come here, not to stay, not if they know their kids, going to our schools, are going to get spoon-fed worthless nonsense. She wrote:
I just can't hire the people to work here. I don't find the US-born PhDs in microelectronics, or I can't get my H-1Bs approved. You have to be able to attract these people, and unless someone puts the infrastructure in place to keep them here the innovation will be taking place in other countries.We're not doing that. Instead, we are overwhelming our own advantage, and surrendering our right to the future, all in the name of the Right's version of political correctness, "teaching the controversy."
There is no controversy: intelligent design has not yet provided a useful scientific insight, and has not earned its place as a "science" deserving of attention in pre-college education. Ignore the handwaving about how Pasteur and Newton were Christians. They achieved their breakthroughs despite, not because of, their religious beliefs. The only controversy is the one the religious right wants to make: the controversy ought to be that they're being allowed to set the science agenda at all.
