In response to the question of how Intelligent Design has been disproven, I would amplify on #81 a bit:

The main argument of ID is “If evolution cannot explain the development of X, then X must be a product of Intelligent Design.” The main logical fallacy here is that Intelligent Design is the only possible alternative to evolution, which must be defaulted to. Also, the assumption that evolutionary theory cannot explain something is invoked for anything which is currently unknown. The mere fact that something has not been explained by the theory of evolution is not proof that evolution cannot explain it (It is, however, conceivable for some empirical observation to apparently contradict evolutionary theory, but, creationists’ claims to the contrary, this has not been observed in actual fact).

It’s worse than that, though. In addition to merely invoking the genuine unknowns of biological evolution, ID proponents are fond of pretending that things which are actually well-understood are, instead, unknown.

Richard Dawkins explains this and more in greater depth in God’s Gift to Kansas.

In any case, this question is important wrt ID because it bears on one of Johnson’s two basic claims in the original Darwin on Trial article, that even if a critic can offer no counter-theory with any principled basis, that evidence of imperfection in a theory is sufficient to reduce it to the value of the counter-theory. What Johnson claimed, as far as I can tell, is that some years ago, since we had not yet found the “missing link” between dinosaurs and birds, that at the time evolution was a failure and therefore deserving of no more consideration than ID. More recently, he might have argued that the inability of evolutionary theory to explain at this time the oddity of a certain bird’s set of features means that evolution is unsatisfactory. etc.

If there wasn’t the conflict with the beliefs of certain soi-disant Christians in this country, the above would be politically unimportant and Sam’s point in #36 would hold, rather benignly; but since people in general are not going to be exposed to these (if you’ll allow me) meta-concerns, the question of the amount of tolerance we ought to give to these kinds of objections is more vexed.

Sorry if the above is messy, got to get back to work.

Er, no. It’s a dodgy critique wrapped up in shiny ineffability.

Jake—yes—that’s exactly what I’m claiming. I can say, “Your theory X is wrong; look at this case which contradicts it,” even if I have no better explanation.

Think of the experiments measuring the speed of light, which disproved the ether theory of how light moved. After that, the ether theory was known to be wrong, but it was several years and several explanations later until there was a new, well-worked-out theory.

No, it’s only worth while if there’s evidence or falsifiable/testable claims upon which the new hypothesis can be made.

Because the people arguing for intelligent design don’t say anything about intelligent design or produce their own science, but just snipe at the already-existing science of evolutionary biology?

But isn’t that a critical piece of “doing science?” It certainly is in my field of math and economics. Pointing out that “this theory doesn’t work—look at this result” does not require and has never required a better theory, although it leads to better theories.

As I said in #36, intelligent design is not an explanatory theory; it’s a demonstration that in some cases, evolutionary theory isn’t a satisfactory explanation.

The question of evolution seems to challenge the idea of the soul, which is for them the locus of irreducible complexity. Whether ‘tis the sperm, the ovum, the blastocyst, the fetus, at some point there is an infusion of a supernatural nature, which is arbitrarily denied to otherwise similar creatures, or precursors of creatures, because they do not partake of the ineffable essence of humanity.

Today we have the effort of the indefatigable Paul Krugman:

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?

and (but this is written by a distinguished professor)

Finally, the self-policing nature of science – scientific truth is determined by peer review, not public opinion – can be exploited by skilled purveyors of cultural resentment. Do virtually all biologists agree that Darwin was right? Well, that just shows that they’re elitists who think they’re smarter than the rest of us.

The same idea of science that made the machine in front of you, and that made this conversation possible, concocted the theory of evolution with comparable tools and the identical attitude. Fuck with it at your peril.

Ken Wilbur’s take on this story, which makes perfect sense to me, is that A&E partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge equates with humans making the monumental and irreversible leap from animal awareness to something akin to what we recognize as human self-awareness. With that relatively recent leap inevitably came such concepts as time, abstract thought, agriculture, foreknowledge of one’s own death, religion, fashion, nukes, cloned dogs, and reality TV.

There’s obviously some good fun to be had with all that abstract thinking, but “God” would actually have been “warning” A&E about the dark side that comes with it all that brainpower. Had Eve—the original scapegoat—just said no to that old snake (or, more accurately, if evolution had taken a different turn) we hominids could have lived in that groovy, animalistic, jungley kinda way for all of eternity. We’d have had no more idea that we were gonna die than my cats have, and that would have saved us from all the insufferable religionistas vying for our precious soooouls and laying down all the ridiculous laws we just gotta follow if we’re gonna escape the boredom of sitting out eternity as a pile of bones in a pine box shoved under the crust of a planet orbiting a sun out in the middle of nowhere. So thanks a lot, Eve/evolutionary twist of fate. I like to think I’d have chosen 40 years of unselfconscious monkey-lovin’ good times over sitting here typing and worrying about the future—nah, who am I kidding…

The flaw in the construction of the A&E/original sin story as it’s commonly related is that humans could never have had a “choice” about whether to become self-aware or to engage in abstract thought. But those crafty religious types were able to frame the issue not only as one of choice but of defiance, thereby enabling them to label it the original sin. They’ve sure gotten a lot of mileage out of that one—today’s pulpit-barons have nothing on the high priests of yore.

The sequel, where Powers explains the truth behind 9/11 and the real reason for the invasion of Iraq, is even better.

Wow. I would so buy that book. Given how Powers worked Middle Eastern folklore (djins, ghuls, Noah, the Fall, etc.) into the Cold War—and the older, colder, war—I think he could pull it off.

After Powers mentioned the Artists Rifles regiment (on Ararat in 1948) and then Stross used them in his Atrocity Archives I had to look it up. Yes, the Artists Rifles is the SAS’s reserve. Such a mild name for that group. “Hi, we’re the Artists Rifles.” That’s almost Pythonesque.

ObID: I’m not sure the entities in Declare would design life on this planet to favor humans in any way at all.