Krugman: Design for Confusion (Intelligent Design)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html?pagewanted=print

I'd like to nominate Irving Kristol, the neoconservative former editor of The Public Interest, as the father of "intelligent design." No, he didn't play any role in developing the doctrine. But he is the father of the political strategy that lies behind the intelligent design movement - a strategy that has been used with great success by the economic right and has now been adopted by the religious right.

Back in 1978 Mr. Kristol urged corporations to make "philanthropic contributions to scholars and institutions who are likely to advocate preservation of a strong private sector." That was delicately worded, but the clear implication was that corporations that didn't like the results of academic research, however valid, should support people willing to say something more to their liking.

Mr. Kristol led by example, using The Public Interest to promote supply-side economics, a doctrine whose central claim - that tax cuts have such miraculous positive effects on the economy that they pay for themselves - has never been backed by evidence. He would later concede, or perhaps boast, that he had a "cavalier attitude toward the budget deficit."

"Political effectiveness was the priority," he wrote in 1995, "not the accounting deficiencies of government."

[ecdab]

1. great piece n/t

[Demeter]

2. What They Do To Science, they do to everything

Look what they do to politics, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: if there is a GOPper who has the slightest concept of the intent and the content of any of the documents, I'll eat them.

Look what they do to justice: in the courts, in the press, in Congress. Hell, look what they do to business---fraud from sea to shining sea, with the total destruction of many lives.

It is the total trashing of Reality as the rest of the world knows it, in the belief that they can create and thereby control reality.

That's just mind control. A total crime against humanity. Prosecute them in every venue!

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Kick.

[Dudley_DUright]

4. Thank you, thank you Paul for standing up for real peer reviewed science

and against ID (idiotic dogma). I like this paragraph:

There are several reasons why fake research is so effective. One is that nonscientists sometimes find it hard to tell the difference between research and advocacy - if it's got numbers and charts in it, doesn't that make it science?

Brings to mind that famous Bush quote:

“It’s clearly a budget. It’s got a lot of numbers in it.”
~ George W. Bush, 2000-05-05

http://mindprod.com/politics/bushismsbudget.html

[BrainRants]

5. The best way to counter ID is with idea overload.

We should teach "Storkism" alongside biology. Many parents teach their kids that the stork brings babies, meaning childbirth is just a theory.

Or, we'll teach ID in public schools, but you have to teach condom safety and safe sex in ALL schools. Because as we know, abstinence is just one theory among many.

Or, we should teach VooDoo as alternative medicine, because as we know modern medicine is just a theory.

[fearnobush]

26. Or check out the Flying Spaghetti Monster God - He is Creation

With his noodly appendage, The FSM created the Mountains, Trees and a Midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.


<http://www.venganza.org/>

<>


"We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence."


"I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature."

<>


<>

[ClintonTyree]

32. All hail the FSM!

That's great, I've never seen it before. Rest assured, this WILL be forwarded to many others who I think would benefit from the knowledge of the FSM. How could I have been so blind all of these years when the TRUTH was starring me right in the face? :shrug: It's SO sublimely simple. This has been a life altering event for me. Thanks! ;)

[Up2Late]

6. Good Stuff

:kick:

[chimpymustgo]

7. Remember Rove: " We create our own reality."

Take that, you suckers in the reality-based world.

[Cugel the Clever]

8. I don't get Krugman's connection

between ID and NeoCon economic policy. Other than both being really stupid and harmful to our country, they are essentially two different faces of this wicked Republican beast.

ID is another product in the line of faux Christianity that is sold by BushCo- it has nothing to do with Christ and what He taught- in fact, it is "anti" the teaching of Jesus. ID is the ideological brother of the "Right To Life(until birth)" clique.

No matter how dodgy such philosophies seem to you and I, they offer solace to fearful people who don't want to think for themselves. By assigning all this power to God (or BushCo) they absolve themselves of all blame and responsibility.

[krkaufman]

10. The link is not direct... the relation is in how they are promoted.

Neither "Supply-side Economics" nor "Intelligent Design" are based on provable theory; they are promoted through pseudo-scholars and think tank front groups, and take advantage of the "two sides to everything" nature of modern news media to gain "credibility."

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[barb162]

14. Supply side economics clearly didn't work under asshole Reagan

and it clearly isn't working under the current asshole-in- chief. Even David Stockman under Reagan admitted tax cuts for the rich didn't work in stimulating the economy. All it did was create huge deficits

[sunnystarr]

22. aw gee and I heard on insHannity today (or was it Limburger?)

how great those tax cuts are working to create the greatest economy in decades.

Ya mean they're wrong?

[barb162]

27. "They're wrong?" NAH!!!!!!

[Dudley_DUright]

16. Perhaps better to say that neither is "falsifiable" a la Karl Popper

Feel better now? ;-)

[K-W]

17. Krugman's point is that it is 'science' developed to fit an agenda.

By creating positions in think tanks and institutes for people who can create academic sounding rationalizations for either conservative economic policies or biblical creationism, groups can very easily create a phoney academic debate about an issue that will neutralize the truth and allow them to push thier agenda.

[krkaufman]

29. Now *I'm* offended..!!!

Please don't even give them the satisfaction of enclosing "science" in quotes when referring to their propaganda.

Like the other night when listening to one of the AAR shows during a discussion of Ignorance by Design... (ah, it was a prank call by Sam Seder to the Creationist Museum in Cinci,OH, I believe)... and the guy on the other end of the line referred to the two "sides" as...

evolution... observable science (redundant)

ignorance by design... historical science (oxymoronimical; nonsensical)

(not really offended, of course; just needed a subject line)

[krkaufman]

20. Not sure what you're trying to say here...

> Suggesting any "theory" is "provable" simply
> demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the
> scientific method.

... unless you're just going for pedantry.

[IntravenousDemilo]

21. I think the poster is trying to point out

that once something is proven, it's no longer a mere theory, but a law, i.e. "Theory" of Relativity vs "Law" of Gravity. No pedantry about it. It's probably one of those things most people get wrong, that sound like FUCKING NAILS ON A FUCKING CHALKBOARD!!!!!! to some other people.

You know, barbarisms such as "I could care less" -- ugh. I'm sure there are common misconceptions that make you crazy, too. We all have them.

[K-W]

24. That isnt really accurate.

A theory doesnt become a law. Laws are basic principles held to be true. A theory is an explenation. A theory may contain laws.

For instance we have no solid theory of gravity. We do not yet know how gravity works. We do however have laws, basic principles that have been varified so many times we hold them as facts.

[moggie]

34. Sorry, that's wrong

A physical law is still a scientific theory. As such, it is open to modification or replacement if sufficiently strong evidence comes along which reveals problems with the law. Scientific theories, including laws, are ways of explaining the world which have withstood the attempts of scientists to disprove them so far, and which have been found good enough to be useful. But they're never set in stone, and this is what makes this science, rather than faith.

The fact that you use the adjective "mere" with "theory" suggests that you're using the latter term in the layman's sense. meaning something like "hunch" or "hypothesis". This is not what a scientist means by "theory". Beware of this, because it's a trick the creationists use a lot.

There's no hard and fast difference between a theory and a law, but laws tend to be very simple, often being expressed in a single equation.

A couple of obvious examples of physical laws which haven't survived 100% intact are Newton's laws of motion, and the three laws of thermodynamics. These remain good enough to be useful in most cases, but Newton's laws break down at high speeds (see relativity), and the laws of thermodynamics become unreliable at the quantum scale.

None of this is relevant to intelligent design creationism, since what that crowd is doing is politics, not science.

[K-W]

36. A little correction.

The fact that you use the adjective "mere" with "theory" suggests that you're using the latter term in the layman's sense. meaning something like "hunch" or "hypothesis". This is not what a scientist means by "theory". Beware of this, because it's a trick the creationists use a lot.

That isnt really accurate, a scientific theory can be a hunch or a hypothesis, and many of our most robust theories today started out as hunches and hypotheses. The critical destinction with ID is that it doesnt stand up to the basic tests of empiricism and logic making it unscientific, and invalid on the face.

To be scientific a theory must rely only on empirical evidence, deductive logic, and falsifiable claims.

[moggie]

39. For "many" read "all"!

The point is that there's a progression from hypothesis (a wacky idea which might just turn out to be right, after we've investigated further) to theory (a logically consistent framework which describes observed facts, makes predictions, and is falsifiable but has not yet been so falsified). Whereas in common (non-scientific) parlance a theory can be any wild idea ("I have a theory that 9/11 was God's punishment for tolerating gays"). Creationists rely on this difference in terminology to set up a false equivalence: "evolution is a theory, but we have a theory too!". As you say, the two are not at all the same critter.

[K-W]

40. I do not agree entirely.

Whereas in common (non-scientific) parlance a theory can be any wild idea ("I have a theory that 9/11 was God's punishment for tolerating gays"). Creationists rely on this difference in terminology to set up a false equivalence: "evolution is a theory, but we have a theory too!". As you say, the two are not at all the same critter.

What they are taking advantage of is the fact that very few people understand what science is, and how science works, so they cannot critically evlauate theories of any kind, including common everday theories.

The two are not the same critter because creationism/ID is a non-scientific theory. But when most people use the word theory they are not referring strictly to non-scientific theories they are referring to all thoeries, good, bad and ugly.

A theory means the same thing in common usage as it does in science, the difference is that scientists are able to critically analyze theories, whereas most people are not. The solution isnt to tell people that scientific theories are special, its to teach them exactly why it is that bad theories are bad and good theories are good so they can do the same analysis for themselves.

[William Seger]

12. Because it's an answer to the question....

... in a democracy, how do you achieve a plurality if you're promoting policies that only benefit a small percentage of the population (especially if just happens to be the same people who are already the most well-off)? The right-wing co-opting of religion in the last few decades was one important answer -- specifically, using it as a political wedge, to convince a large segment of a population which is actually politically liberal (if they understood the term) that they hate liberals. Prayer in schools and teaching creationism are political issues, not regious issues, and exploiting them has paid off well for the economic plutocrats.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. "The essential poem at the centre of things" can encompass ID & Neocon 2

However, ID and the Neocons will be the "clods" in the giant.

[non sociopath skin]

11. Krugman hits the spot, as always.

If this guy isn't in the next Democratic President's team, they don't deserve squat!

The Skin

[Initech]

15. Brilliant!

"Intelligent" Design is the loophole the fundies needed to get creationism taught in schools. It's perfect. Although it doesnt have anything to do with intelligence, design, or evolution.

[DanCa]

18. Anti Choice Trojan Horse

I knew this was just the trojan horse that the anti choicers were looking for. And Liberal christianity takes another black eye.

[WarhammerTwo]

19. This gets my dander up...

...which is not a pretty sight. Dander everywhere. It's a mess and a pain to clean up. As a scientist (I'm a biochemist for Merck), I can tell the difference between science and advocacy. I always try to tell my non-scientist associates the difference but often they are so entrenched in their dogma that my words go in one ear and out the other. Very frustrating. I do need some clarification, however. Creationism is the world and everything was made in seven days (even though the sun wasn't made until a few days into the process so that there was no actual way to keep track of days), correct? Intelligent Design differs how? I thought intelligent design was that evolution happened but it was all guided by God. Is my understanding of that correct? See, I'm also a Christian. Fairly devout, too. I go to my Byzantine Catholic Mass almost every Saturday evening and then go to my wife's UCC service on most Sundays. I believe in God. And I believe that he was responsible for the creation of the universe. I think the Big Bang is His doing. I believe the primordial ooze that first spawned life was, in some way, due to Him. After that, I believe He kinda sat back and just let evolution do its thing. However, these are my BELIEFS. That is precisely why I DO NOT believe they belong in a science class. I can't back up any of this through observation. I can't set up conditions in order to support this theory (which, by the way, can never be proved. Theories can only be supported or rejected). Therefore, IT IS NOT SCIENCE!! Evolution is science and belongs in science class. If I want my kids to have my religious slant on it, I'll teach them my BELIEFS at home or at church...where such ideas belong.

Later gators.

[sunnystarr]

23. Intelligent design was coined to replace Creationism cause it

sounded more intelligent and less religious. It's all in the labels dontchaknow.

[barb162]

28. And I think there is an implied understanding there is logic too

It's far more dangerous a phrase than creationism. Reminds me of anti-abortion v. pro-life usage. Pro-life sounds SOOOOOOO reasonable and all compared to anti-abortion.

[McCamy Taylor]

31. Intelligent design hurts spirituality as well as science.

There is a sign near my house that says something along the lines of "If you dont experience God and believe then you are doubly blessed." This is pretty weak if you ask me. Christians and Jews and Muslims are required to be "fodder"--people who work, marry, reproduce, read their holy text in its literal meaning and never have a mystical experience, so that their religions can produce a handful of holy people who will continue to support the Organized Religion.

This is total bull crap. The Churches should be encouraging a spiritual reading of their holy texts, not a literal reading. They should be encouraging mystical experience, not following the letter of a list of laws that in themselves mean little.

St. Francis was a big PR boost for the Church in Rome---but he was also trouble for them, too, because he encouraged the fodder to forget their place, and so they had to keep reining him in.

Buddhism was a big religion in India for a while but eventually they tossed it out in favor of good old status quo Hinduism.

Only a few Jewish men over the age of 40 are allowed to study the Kaballah.

Intelligent Design is death to true spiritual development.

[Olney Blue]

33. Welcome to DU, WarhammerTwo...

almost every scientist I know is a Democrat!

I agree with your separation of science and beliefs...

[moggie]

38. That's an interesting observation

It's been my impression that (internationally) you'll find biologists at all parts of the political spectrum, whereas the ID creationists are, overwhelmingly, on the political right. Further evidence that ID is politics rather than science: if it were science, why would they all be so similar politically?

[jurassicpork]

25. One Kansas Educator...

...recently said that "intelligent design is just Creationism in a cheap tuxedo."

See my blog for my two most recent posts on intelligent design.

JP
http://jurassicpork.blogspot.com

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sunyasi]

35. This also is related...

to another problem, the inerrancy of Scripture. Evangelicals are fundamentalists, believing in the solely literal interpretation of an inerrant Scripture. In other wards they believe that EVERY word is absolutely right in its context. The problem is that there is bad science in the Bible. There is bad geography in the Bible. There are many mistakes in the Bible. THE BIBLE IS A FAITH BOOK NOT A SCIENCE BOOK. That's the only sense that you can claim inerrancy, that in matters of faith and possibly morals, the Bible is the right way to follow.:grouphug: :loveya: ;)

[Martin Eden]

37. Museum in Arkansas: Adam & Eve co-existed with T-Rex

More of these museums catering to Americans who believe that biblical Genesis is fact, are planned:

Creationist Dinosaur
Museum Opens In Arkansas
By Paul Harris in Eureka Springs, Arkansas
The Observer - UK
5-22-5

The razor-toothed Tyrannosaurus rex, jaws agape, loomed ominously over the gentle Thescelosaurus, looking for plants to eat. Admiring the museum diorama were old and young visitors, listening on headphones to a stentorian voice describing the primeval scene.

But the Museum of Earth History is a museum with a controversial difference. To one side, peering through the bushes, are Adam and Eve. The display is not an image of the Cretaceous. It is Paradise. 'They lived together without fear, for there was no death yet,' the voice intoned about Man and Dinosaur.
<<snip>>

The museum forms part of a Bible-based theme park in Eureka Springs; the car park is full of cars and coaches from all over the country. To enter the museum is to explore a surrealistic parallel world. Biblical quotes appear on displays. The first has dinosaurs, alongside Adam and Eve, living in harmony. The ferociously fanged T. rex is likely to be a vegetarian. Then comes the Fall of Man and an ugly world where dinosaurs prey on each other and the first extinctions occur. The destruction of the dinosaurs is explained, not by a comet striking the Earth 65 million years ago, but by the Flood. This, the museum says, wiped out most of the dinosaurs still alive and created the Grand Canyon and huge layers of sedimentary rock seen around the world.

Some dinosaurs survived on Noah's ark. One poster explains that Noah would have chosen juvenile dinosaurs to save space. An illustration shows two green sauropods in the ark alongside more conventional elephants and lions. The final exhibit depicts the Ice Age, where the last dinosaurs existed with woolly mammoths until the cold and hunting by cavemen caused them to die out.

Read More:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1489520,00.html

This is so ridiculous that it borders an satire, but it's friggin' true -- people really believe this crap! There was an article in Sunday's Chicago Tribune that quoted one of the proponents of these museums; he said that Christianity would not be valid if biblical Genesis was'nt literal fact.