I see that this list is loaded with postings critical of ID. So why in the
world would I consider ID so seriously? The obvious answer would be that
I am either too stupid, dishonest, and/or motivated by non-rational urges.
I suppose this is understandable since the vast majority of those who
are critical of ID impose the old "anti-evolution/creationist" template
on the ID position and that template carries (deservedly or undeservedly)
the common perceptions of "stupidity, dishonesty, and/or non-rational
motivations." Human beings have a deep-rooted need to categorize
each other, especially when dealing with people who look or think
differently than them. The "us vs. them" attitude is so much a part
of humanity that it should not surprise anyone that it would also
appear in discussions on origins.
With that said, I sure can say that being a proponent of ID can often
be a pain in the butt. Luckily, I have always enjoyed arguing
for minority positions and adopting a maverick outlook on reality.
Nevertheless, the shear hostility and suspicion that is often entailed
in debates about these issues can be quite wearisome. And this is
all the more true when you consider that the opposition to ID is
so numerous and entrenched in positions of power. Given the
powerful negative social dynamics that can come from
seriously proposing ID, perhaps I would have to be stupid or
motivated by some crusade to withstand such winds. But that
is not the case.
There is one thing that causes me to take ID seriously and it is
that I have found it to be so darn useful for framing both questions
and hypotheses about the biological world. Just in the last year,
ID has been very helpful in formulating some rather specific
hypotheses about such unrelated phenomena as transcription,
the general state of the cytoplasm, rubisco, enolase function
in degradosomes, and the distribution of dnaK-dnaJ-grpE genes
in Archaea, along with various other minor phenomena. Why
would I abandon ID when I am under the growing conviction
that this is just the tip of the iceberg?
Thus, for me, the vast majority of anti-ID arguments have
become noisy background chatter. I have no interest in
trying to prove ID or insert ID into anyone's science
curricula. My interest in not in getting anyone else to
concede or agree, because that really doesn't matter. My
interest is in whether ID systematically works to help us
understand biotic reality. The world is the real judge and
not some community of people.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 21:17:44 EDT