As mentioned in Jameske’s news updates today, Wired Magazine is running a lengthy story regarding the conflict between proponents of ‘Intelligent Design’ and Darwinian evolutionists. It’s a surprisingly one-sided report, with writer Evan Ratliff completely favouring orthodox science on this one and painting the ID lobby as all-show and no substance, and basically as faux-creationists.
He also presents an image of a group that believes we were all created ‘as is’ by an all-powerful deity, which from my own readings isn’t exactly what a lot of ID proponents are suggesting. Indeed, on the last page it’s refreshing to see input from technology guru George Gilder on why he supports ID, and his short piece seems in stark opposition to the image portrayed by Ratliff:
Natural selection should be taught for its important role in the adaption of species, but Darwinian materialism is an embarrassing cartoon of modern science…intelligent design theory begins by recognizing that everywhere in nature, information is hierarchical and precedes its embodiment. The concept precedes the concrete. The contrary notion that the world of mind, including science itself, bubbled up randomly from a prebiotic brew has inspired all the reductionist futilities of the 20th century.
Gilder focuses his questions on the complexity of our ‘molecular blueprint’ in DNA, and some of his argument sounds closer to a theory of ‘conscious evolution’ than just simply intelligent design. I welcome your input on the article, if you have some views to share.