Unintelligent Designs

The Corner on National Review Online

DARWIN AND CATHOLICS

[John Derbyshire]There is, to judge from my mailbag, a widespread opinion that adherence to Darwinian biology is ungodly, if not actually atheistic. To the attention of NRO readers holding that opinion, I commend Francisco Ayala. Ayala is a working biologist who is also an ordained Dominican priest. He does not only think "Intelligent Design" is flat wrong, he thinks it's blasphemous! There are some notes on his opinions here.

Ayala was raised and educated in General Franco's Spain, the most intensely Christian nation of modern times. In his Catholic schools, he was taught straight Darwinism, without warnings or qualifications. Now he teaches it himself, at UC Irvine. Note how he deals with the doubts of Catholic students (point 11). Ayala's remarks illustrate an aspect of the I.D. business not much commented on: it is an entirely American phenomenon -- really, an outgrowth of American folk religiosity.

You can find a scattered few I.D. followers in other countries, but I.D. is not a public or pedagogic issue anywhere but in the U.S.A. People in other countries are just baffled by it; scientists in other countries just shake their heads sadly. This is not the case with any scientific theory that I am aware of. Real science is international. The presence of a strongly national coloring is, in fact, a pretty good marker of pseudoscience. Compare, for example, the "Soviet science" (Lysenkoism, Marrism, etc.) of Stalin.

There is nothing wrong with folk religiosity, of course. I personally regard it as a strengthening and cohesive force in the national life, and in the conservative movement. I am happy about American folk religiosity, and regard it with cheerful approval. But-- It. Is. Not. Science.

It. Is. The. Anti. Science. The no-rules, no-proof, and no accountability version of what science was back in the witch and warlock days of yore. Because"regular"science is bad, very bad and all the ID'ers really want is "just another theory heard from".

And as we've said many a time, that opens the Pandora's Box of WHAT "theory" should NOT be heard from? Which religious interpretation of Creation is okay, and which one is pure nonsense? Great scott but they're getting as bad as the other exhibitionists who pretend that something is PRIDEFUL just to be heard from. Not getting enough attention at home, bunky? Well hell then hoss, go call a newspaper and ask them to feature YOUR version of something, and remember...the wackier the better!

Click here to see the various versions of Creation : Science Versus Creationism...