Ayn Rand Institute: The Bait and Switch of “Intelligent Design”

Posted by PvM on May 7, 2005 03:01 PM

An unexpected voice in the debate about Intelligent Design has joined the voices of reason. Keith Lockitch, who holds a Ph.D. in physics and who is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, CA, has  written a very compelling evaluation of Intelligent Design leading him to the conclusion that “Intelligent Design” is religion masquerading as science.”

Keith Lockitch observes that

Their premise seems to be that as long as they don’t explicitly name the “designer”—as long as they allow that the “designer” could be a naturally existing being, a being accessible to scientific study—that this somehow saves their viewpoint from the charge of being inherently religious in character.

But does it?

He quickly points out something I have also been arguing namely that the designer ID proponents have in mind has to exist outside nature itself.

By the very nature of its approach, “intelligent design” cannot be satisfied with a “designer” who is part of the natural world. Such a “designer” would not answer the basic question its advocates raise: it would not explain biological complexity as such. The only “designer” that would stop their quest for a “design” explanation of complexity is a “designer” about whom one cannot ask any questions or who cannot be subjected to any kind of scientific study—a “designer” that “transcends” nature and its laws—a “designer” not susceptible of rational explanation—in short: a supernatural “designer.”

This conclusion can also be reached when observing that ID argues that science does not deal with the concept of design as it pertains to biology while also arguing that science succesfully applies design detection in areas such as criminology, archaeology, cryptology etc. The obvious conclusion thus is that science cannot address ID’s designer since it exists outside nature.

See for instance Where purpose and function meet or Topic: The Other Flagellum II

Lockitch quickly focuses on what is self-evident, even without having access to the Wedge Document:

The supposedly nonreligious theory of “intelligent design” is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion by giving it the veneer of science—to pretend, as one commentator put it, that “faith in God is something that holds up under the microscope.”

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1013

Comment #28865

Posted by Joseph O'Donnell on May 7, 2005 03:30 PM (e) (s)

That was a really good essay and hit the point exactly.

Comment #28874

Posted by Fernmonkey on May 7, 2005 04:20 PM (e) (s)

It’s a good article, although I’m slightly surprised at the source.

My born-American-naturalised-European husband insists that one of the great thing about living this side of the pond is that mentioning <i>either</i> Ayn Rand <i>or</i> Intelligent Design will usually get you a blank “wtf?” sort of look.

Comment #28878

Posted by Chip Poirot on May 7, 2005 04:37 PM (e) (s)

The Ayn Rand Institute should recognize common bedfellows. I would say that it is one of the most qualified institutes to speak on religions masquerading as science. Oh the irony!

Sometimes, one really must be a bit choosy of one’s allies. This is one I’ll pass on-thanks.

Comment #28900

Posted by ruidh on May 7, 2005 07:06 PM (e) (s)

I was hoping that someone would mention the pro-evolution, anti-creationist official statement of the Episcopal Church on Creation and Science.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm…

Comment #28910

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 7, 2005 08:36 PM (e) (s)

The supposedly nonreligious theory of “intelligent design” is nothing more than a crusade to peddle religion

Music to my ears.  Thanks for the link to this great article, Pim.

Comment #28915

Posted by afarensis on May 7, 2005 09:46 PM (e) (s)

The best part of the article was:
“Their scientifically accessible “designer” is nothing more than a gateway god—metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.”

Comment #28942

Posted by Great White Wonder on May 8, 2005 01:58 AM (e) (s)

Their scientifically accessible “designer” is nothing more than a gateway god—metaphysical marijuana intended to draw students away from natural, scientific explanations and get them hooked on the supernatural.

Marijuana is a lot better for you than intelligent design.  At least, that’s what I’ve heard …

Comment #28956

Posted by inwit on May 8, 2005 08:34 AM (e) (s)

Great White Wonder wrote:

Marijuana is a lot better for you than intelligent design.

The former can be used to counteract the nausea and vomiting induced by the latter.

Comment #28958

Posted by Dan S. on May 8, 2005 09:06 AM (e) (s)

Oh God, I have to agree with something the Ayn Rand Institute put out!  Ugh.  Now I really hate IDCers.

Comment #28960

Posted by Malkuth on May 8, 2005 09:08 AM (e) (s)

Ah, the Objectivists.  Non-psychologists who think they know more about psychology than psychologists (well, Rand only acted like she knew anything about psychology; she had admitted to Nathaniel Branden that she knew nothing about it), non-ecologists who think they know more about the environment than ecologists, and non-climatologists who think they know more about global warming theory than climatologists.

Oh, and have you read about how quantum mechanics is fantasy pseudoscience?

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7868&n…

I wonder if the evidence that supports relativity and quantum mechanics is immoral and nihilistic?  Or perhaps evil?

I’m going to have to agree with Chip Poirot here.  Lockitch himself is an intelligent, level-headed person (and his article is good, as everyone else pointed out), but the majority of the fellows at the ARI aren’t.

Comment #28986

Posted by PvM on May 8, 2005 11:40 AM (e) (s)

One does not have to agree with the Ayn Rand philosophy to agree with the excellent observations made about ID.

Comment #29226

Posted by David Heddle on May 9, 2005 06:07 PM (e) (s)

Anyone who works at the Ayn Rand Institute is delusional. Rand was, after all, the High Priestess of Self and worshipped at the altar of individualism. However, she was not self consistent. If she were, she would have told her pinheaded followers at ARI to go home, because the last thing on earth that her philosophy should tolerate is a cult following.

I like the emerging alignment. What do these three have in common?

1) Ayn Rand Institute
2) YECs
3) Panda’s Thumb

They all oppose cosmological ID.

Comment #29228

Posted by Malkuth on May 9, 2005 06:11 PM (e) (s)

Actually, I do agree with the philosophy of Ayn Rand (partially; I disagree with her treatment of environmentalism and psychology, amongst a few other things) and the article this thread is about; I just think the fellows at the ARI are nuts.

Comment #29253

Posted by PvM on May 9, 2005 07:39 PM (e) (s)

Sorry for spam deleting Heddle’s first attempt at posting his comments. For some reason, I thought it was spam and ran it through the spam filter. I will work with the administrator to correct this.

Comment #29260

Posted by steve on May 9, 2005 08:08 PM (e) (s)

Spam filter’s doing it’s job.

Comment #29263

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 9, 2005 08:22 PM (e) (s)

lol

Comment #29305

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 10, 2005 07:09 AM (e) (s)

They all oppose cosmological ID.

Nobody cares about your religious pronunciomentos, Heddle.  They are no more authoritative than those of my car mechanic or the kid who delivers my pizzas.  <shrug>

You are just a man, Heddle.

Comment #37023

Posted by Tim Chase on July 6, 2005 02:50 PM (e) (s)

One often has to be careful about what comes out of ARI — they are in essence the main Objectivist Fundamentalist organization (i.e., followers of the atheistic philosophy of Ayn Rand, celebrating metaphysical realism, objectivity, individual rights and property rights, and the free market)  — but at the time, much of what they publish is often quite insightful.  On the negative side, they tend to be very dismissive of environmental concerns, and in the domain of physics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics (particularly, the probablistic nature of causality in Quantum Mechanics).  But this particular article was obviously one of their more insightful pieces.  And given the nature of Keith’s work in physics, perhaps there is some hope for them in that domain as well.

Post a Comment

Use Kwickcode Formatting to markup your comments. You may need to refresh before you will see your comment.




Remember personal info?

  


Trackback: The Purist Form Marketing

Posted by Abnormal Interests on May 7, 2005 03:43 PM

When there is nothing to sell but a lie. PvM writing on Panda's Thumb directs our attention to "The Bait and Switch of 'Intelligent Design'", by Keith Lockitch, Ph.D. and junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California....