Of late, I have been privately debating a couple of fellow Austrians via email as at least one of them wants to spearhead the creation of a peer-reviewed “Intelligent Design” journal. Perhaps the greatest piece of irony is that of Rothbard’s Law which essentially says everyone specializes in what he is worst at (I wrote the Wikipedia entry on it). Very frustrating to say the least, the fact that they not only are buying these arguments from creationists-in-disguise, but that they are going to use valuable time they could have otherwise spent promoting economics, the field they got their PhDs in.
And is it just me, or is it also odd that proponents of ID want to “teach the controversy” despite lacking an actual theory/model? Does this not show where their ulterior motives lie (see the Wedge Strategy)? What exactly are they going to teach? “Scientists cannot currently explain phenomenon Y, however if you step outside the natural bounds of secular science, there is a simple solution: an intelligent designer!” That is the good ol’ hackneyed ‘god-in-the-gaps‘ theory: if you can’t explain it, god must have done it (similarly, “if libertarians cannot create a business model for an industry, the State must regulate it”).
If proponents of ID want to play in the world of empiricism it would help a lot to have some kind of empirical data to look at. Thus far, many of the leaders simply just criticize portions of “evolutionary theory” they feel is inadequately studied (which is good for them to do, but doesn’t make up for a lack of testable alternatives).
With regards to publishing, in “Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker” (cached):
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.“They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
Why are publishing rates, or lack thereof, so important? They usually correlate with original research or at least a meta-analysis of past research in a specific field. If no one is publishing research then it can mean a number of things, including the simple fact that you simply are not doing any research. And you guessed it, the publishing rates of major ID proponents in their area of specialty is next to nil.
Hugh Ross is the only prominent “creationist” of sorts who actively publishes in any type of journal and he really does not like being clumped with other IDers, as he is a ‘old-earth-creationist.’ In fact, he even semi-praised the recent Dover case as seen in a recent press release discussing this issue.
With regards to actual theory, irreducible complexity (which is the only kind of model ID has, however it isn’t really a model per se) simply says that in order for a system to have developed or evolved to its current state, it must have been designed by a 3rd party — as modifications normally rendered through biological evolution would not have created its necessary foundation in the first place.
Despite the fact that this has been empirically absolved several times, its creator Michael Behe (who believes in a common descent as well as an “old earth”) continues to promote it.
Look for more on this topic on the weeks to come. See also ‘Intelligent Falling Theory‘ - ‘Incompetent Design‘ - Talk Origins (1 2) and Pharyngula (1 2).