Dear colleagues,

I just discovered from another forum that a new category of design ("intelligent design") is becoming essential.
The programme it sets makes me realize how little ambitions I had until today.
And it open new avenues in terms of ontology of design : what a huge number of new PhD topics we will potentially unlashŠ

Best regards,

Jean 

**************************************************
On May 10th, a House Judiciary Committee hearing room was the site of a
three-hour briefing on paleontology, biology, and cosmology. Although
presentations were at times quite technical, the speakers were not there
to discuss the latest research in these fields. They were on Capitol Hill
to promote intelligent design (ID) theory, to debunk Darwinian
evolutionary theory, and to expose the negative social impact of
Darwinism. Entitled "Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design and its
Implications for Public Policy and Education," the briefing was sponsored
by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank
(http://www.discovery.org), and its Center for the Renewal of Science and
Culture. The afternoon briefing was preceded by a private luncheon in the
U.S. Capitol for Members of Congress and was followed by an evening
reception.

This AGI special update provides a short summary of the presentations
given at the briefing. Until now, the creation-evolution debate has
primarily been active at the state and local level, but this event may
represent the start of a new effort to involve Congress in efforts to
oppose the teaching of evolution. Whether by chance or by design, the
briefing took place as the Senate entered its second week of debate on
overhauling federal K-12 education programs. Both houses are expected to
work throughout the summer on reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act. More on that subject at
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/ike106.html.

*** Creationist and Congressional Heavy Hitters ***

The briefing featured a number of the leading lights in the ID movement,
including Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe, author of
"Darwin's Black Box;" Whitworth College philosophy professor Stephen
Meyer, who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and
is a former ARCO geophysicist; Discovery Institute Fellow Nancy Pearcey,
co-author with Chuck Colson of "How Now Shall We Live?;" and Berkeley law
professor Phillip Johnson, author of "Darwin on Trial." Behe and Meyer
spoke first, focusing on a scientific explanation of ID theory and
discussion of the weaknesses of Darwinian theory. The second two speakers,
Pearcey and Johnson, focused on social and political implications of the
competing worldviews represented by these two theories.

Approximately 50 people attended the briefing, including a handful of
congressional staff and several Members of Congress. The chairman of the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Rep. Charles Canady
(R-FL), provided the room. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) made remarks
comparing the current Kansas social controversy over evolution to the one
spawned by abolitionist John Brown. More significant was the appearance of
Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI), who warmly introduced several of the speakers.
Petri is slated to become chairman of the House Education and the
Workforce Committee in January, replacing retiring chairman Bill Goodling
(R-PA). Other congressional co-hosts listed on the press release included
House Science Committee members Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Sheila
Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and Education Committee member Mark Souder (R-IN).

*** Empirical Evidence for Design ***

Despite the presence of congressional heavy hitters, Johnson disavowed any
intention of playing the Washington power game (something he accused
scientists of doing) and emphasized that he and his colleagues were there
only to open minds which had been kept closed by an elite scientific
priesthood. All of the speakers emphasized that this was a debate among
scientists, not between science and religion. They stressed that the idea
of design is entirely empirical, that we recognize it all the time in
everyday life and can make the conclusion of design based wholly on the
physical evidence. However, they also recognized that intelligent design
theory has theistic implications. Unlike some other creationists, ID
supporters accept deep time and indeed argue that the cosmological big
bang is evidence for the existence of something beyond nature. Like other
creationists, however, they argue that the diversity and complexity of
life could not have come about through undirected processes of natural
selection.

Behe and Meyer emphasized two keystones of ID theory: (1) that an
intelligent designer is the only way to explain irreducibly complex
natural systems, which defy explanation by Darwinian processes; and (2)
that information is a third fundamental entity separate from matter and
energy, and information can only come from a mind. Meyer used this second
concept to link ID theory to the new knowledge-based economy where value
comes from information not material resources. Nearly all the speakers
cited a quote by Bill Gates equating DNA with extremely complex computer
code.

The speakers portrayed ID theory as the logical outcome of the advancement
of science. Both Behe and Meyer repeatedly noted that scientists have been
enormously surprised by the complexity they find in nature -- whereas
Darwinism may have worked within the limited scope of 19th-century
scientific understanding, it cannot handle the much greater complexity
that scientists now recognize.

*** Confronting the Darwinian Worldview ***

Nancy Pearcey spoke on the worldview implications of Darwinism, noting
that many people apply Darwinism to every walk of life. She cited the book
A Natural History of Rape, which portrayed rape as an evolutionary
adaptation strategy rather than a pathology. She found this example
helpful in spelling out the logical consequences of Darwinism. The key
battleground is education, which in the hands of Darwinists is no longer a
search for truth. Instead, ideas are now merely problem-solving tools.

Pearcey asked what this means for religion, answering that for the
Darwinists, god becomes merely an idea that appears in the human mind. For
Darwinists, religion must give way to a new science-based cosmic myth with
the power to bind humans together in a new world order. She then asked
what this means for morality and argued that people were right to be
concerned that all the above would undercut morality. She cited a recent
popular song urging that "you and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals so
let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel."

Pearcey went on to explain that the US legal system is based on moral
principles and that the only way to have ultimate moral grounding for law
is to have an unjudged judge, an uncreated creator. Nothing else can take
his place. All else can be challenged in a grand "says who?" She pointed
to arguments made by Michael Sandel of Harvard in his book Democracy's
Discontent in which modern society is portrayed as a struggle between
those who think morality is up for grabs and those who view it as given.

*** Creation Myths and Priesthoods ***

Phillip Johnson explained that Darwinism is not so much a scientific
theory as a creation story. Every culture has a creation story jealously
guarded by a priesthood. The triumph of Darwinism is the replacement of
one priesthood -- the clergy -- with another of scientists and
intellectuals, a process now complete in Europe but still being contested
in the US. According to Johnson, the Darwinian creation story finds its
essential support in certain philosophical rules, the main one being that
natural selection has enormous creative power from bacteria to redwood
trees to people. He called it a marvelous story but asked what it has been
seen to do? Change the size of some finch beaks in the Galapagos Islands?
He argued that it has never been seen to create anything.

Johnson argued that the scientific priesthood has banished god from
allowable discussion, leaving Darwinism as the only game in town.
Intelligent design cannot be considered because it includes an unevolved
intelligence. For the scientists, it is an offensive thought crime to
suggest something other than Darwinism. Johnson quotes from an ABA Journal
article that "to consider ID in biology would be as blasphemous as Satan
worship in church." A curious repeated theme among the speakers was their
surprise at the receptivity in official Chinese media to ID theory. The
point was then made that in China one can question Darwinism but not the
government, whereas in the US one can question the government but not
Darwinism.

Johnson argued that in order to have an open discussion about the logic of
Darwinism, the question needed to be redefined in order to get beyond the
stereotype of biblical literalists; a genuine intellectual issue needed to
be articulated. As Johnson sees it, the problem is that there are two
definitions of science in our culture: (1) science is unbiased empirical
testing and observations that follow the evidence wherever it leads
without prejudice; and (2) science is applied materialist philosophy
which, like Marxism or Freudianism, is willing to impose its authority.

In Johnson's view, scientists get public support because they wrap
themselves in the first definition. Supporters of ID theory need to flush
out the scientists true colors by identifying situations where their
philosophy of materialism says one thing but the evidence tells a
different story. Once that is on the table, then the scientists' game is
over.

*** What About Religion? ***

All four speakers were exceedingly cautious in responding to questions
about how ID theory relates to religion. Meyer emphasized that the issue
is about two different scientific theories with large implications for
theistic and naturalistic worldviews. When asked if he was being too
tentative about ID theory not being a proof of god, Meyer replied that
using the principle of uniformitarianism -- that the present is the key to
past -- naturalism is insufficient, and a designer is thus needed. Johnson
added that we cannot conclude from scientific inquiry whether the
intelligent designer is indeed the God of the Bible. The speakers
repeatedly emphasized that ID theory is a big tent that includes Jews and
agnostics but all united by the belief that there is objective truth.

Asked if there was a critical mass yet of ID supporters among scientists
at universities, Johnson stated that you do not convince the priesthood
but generationally replace them. He argued that demographics are on ID's
side -- polls show skepticism about Darwinism so the public at large is
sympathetic but has been disabled by the stereotypes and mind games of the
scientific elite. The people need to be empowered and that is what is
happening with the Internet and talk radio, which takes away control from
the scientific gatekeepers. Johnson's stated objective was to get
thousands of young people in the classroom asking questions of dogmatic
professors, and he said that it is already happening.
***************************************************************************************

Jean Schneider
Dept. of Product and Strategic Design
University of Art&Design Helsinki/Hämeentie 135C/00560 Helsinki/Finland
[log in to unmask]
phone: (358) 9 756 30 261
fax  : (358) 9 756 30 345




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%