Intelligent Design and the Left

[August1991]

Scion of America’s greatest Keynesian, James K. Galbraith recently penned one of the most astonishing near misses in recent memory. In the December/January edition of Mother Jones Galbraith accuses free-market economists starting with Adam Smith of being Intelligent Design (ID) hucksters.

“Economists… have been Intelligent Designers since the beginning,” Galbraith writes. “Adam Smith was a deist; he believed in a world governed by a benevolent system of natural law… Smith's Creator did not interfere. He simply wrote the laws and left them for events to demonstrate and man to discover.”

Galbraith’s analogy is badly forced. But it is forced ultimately to synthesize two of the left’s favorite bromides: that free-market economists are crazy, and that creationists are ignorant rubes.

Galbraith (deliberately?) misunderstands the bulk of the arguments for ID. After all, if “Smith’s Creator did not interfere,” his analogy with ID does not hold. ID depends on the idea of a Designer’s interference in the process of forming complex life-forms. By contrast, there’s Darwin, whose process is seemingly blind and purposeless.

Max Borders in tcsdaily.com

In essence, the "progressive" Left criticizes Intelligent Design for being obviously false, and laughs at the religious for misunderstanding Darwinism. But then the "progressive" Left misunderstands the nature of markets and presupposes an Intelligent Design in the form of a State, capable of organizing society.

Underneath it, I have a suspicion that most people neither understand Charles Darwin nor Adam Smith. As a result, some put their trust in God, and others put their trust in the State. In both cases, they see a need for a superior power that designs, organizes and gives meaning to the universe.

[Riverwind]

In essence, the "progressive" Left criticizes Intelligent Design for being obviously false, and laughs at the religious for misunderstanding Darwinism. But then the "progressive" Left misunderstands the nature of markets and presupposes an Intelligent Design in the form of a State, capable of organizing society.

I really don't see the connection here. Most people on the center or left believe that when left alone, free markets will result in a brutal form a social Darwinism where a small minority of 'survivors' enjoy most of the rewards. The role of government is to be a moderator or referee that protects the majority of people from the excesses of the market system without eliminating the incentives created by a competitive system. The only issue is how much the state should intervene to deal with the 'blind and purposeless markets'.

I guess I disagree with Galbraith's contention that Smith's way of thinking is similar to ID. Exactly the opposite I would say.

[BubberMiley]

In essence, the "progressive" Left criticizes Intelligent Design for being obviously false, and laughs at the religious for misunderstanding Darwinism. But then the "progressive" Left misunderstands the nature of markets and presupposes an Intelligent Design in the form of a State, capable of organizing society.

Underneath it, I have a suspicion that most people neither understand Charles Darwin nor Adam Smith. As a result, some put their trust in God, and others put their trust in the State. In both cases, they see a need for a superior power that designs, organizes and gives meaning to the universe.

I've never heard anyone say intelligent design is "obviously false." They've said it is not science, in no way resembles science, and therefore does not belong in a science classroom. There's a big difference.

[August1991]

I really don't see the connection here. Most people on the center or left believe that when left alone, free markets will result in a brutal form a social Darwinism where a small minority of 'survivors' enjoy most of the rewards. The role of government is to be a moderator or referee that protects the majority of people from the excesses of the market system without eliminating the incentives created by a competitive system.

Precisely. The Left miraculously sees a need for the 'State' among people but just as miraculously doesn't see the need for 'God' in the universe.

To religious people, the universe would not exist and life would have no meaning if God did not exist to create and guide life. As Ronald Reagan said, "Look around you and tell me that this wonderful feast did not have a chef."

To the Left, our life would not exist and we would be impoverished if the State did not exist to organize and guide our affairs. As Tommy Douglas perhaps said, "Look around you and tell me that a higher standard of living has not accompanied increased government intervention."

The Left wholly rejects "Intelligent Design" but it willfully accepts "Intelligent State". This is the contradiction.

[Riverwind]

The Left wholly rejects "Intelligent Design" but it willfully accepts "Intelligent State". This is the contradiction.

Not really. "Intelligent Design" presumes a supernatural creator that is beyond the control or understanding of humans. An "Intelligent State" is created by humans and controlled by humans.

To the Left, our life would not exist and we would be impoverished if the State did not exist to organize and guide our affairs.

Government has been a part of every human society from the days of hunting mammoth. The only difference between different governments through out history is how leaders are chosen, how decisions are made and how rule breakers are punished. The only difference between Galbraith and Smith are the types of "states" that should exist - not whether a state exists.

[August1991]

I've never heard anyone say intelligent design is "obviously false." They've said it is not science, in no way resembles science, and therefore does not belong in a science classroom. There's a big difference.

Can you explain the big difference between "not science" and "obviously false"?

More pertinently, following the last paragraph of the article linked above, if we permit teaching of "socialism" and a "command economy" in the classroom because they are valid viewpoints, should we not also include teaching of "Intelligent Design"?

[geoffrey]

I've never heard anyone say intelligent design is "obviously false." They've said it is not science, in no way resembles science, and therefore does not belong in a science classroom. There's a big difference.

Can you explain the big difference between "not science" and "obviously false"?

More pertinently, following the last paragraph of the article linked above, if we permit teaching of "socialism" and a "command economy" in the classroom because they are valid viewpoints, should we not also include teaching of "Intelligent Design"?

I'm a Christian and I don't believe ID should be taught in science. It is purely a theological argument and belongs in a class of related material, or in philosophy.

I'm personally very skeptical of evolution, as the theory seems rather convoluted and designed as a means to an end. Not to mention the science in support of it is 'found' to fit the theory and not disprove it like the real scientific process.

None the less, it is still remotely based on science, more so than ID that says God created life wham bam case closed.

I'd be ok with science that didn't teach either, but that would have real consequences in the future. There is a real problem to be found with high school biology students being told evolution is correct, then pursuing university education with this dogmatic attachment to everything they find in later endeavours should be in line with evolution, or convolute the evidence to fit the evolutionary argument.

There is no science in ID. If you care to dispute that, I'd be all for considering any real evidence one may have. I'm also up for disputing nearly everything in evolution too.

[BubberMiley]

Can you explain the big difference between "not science" and "obviously false"?

More pertinently, following the last paragraph of the article linked above, if we permit teaching of "socialism" and a "command economy" in the classroom because they are valid viewpoints, should we not also include teaching of "Intelligent Design"?

Social studies is not science, but it is not "obviously false." Science must be provable. That's the very basis of the discipline. You take a theory (which intelligent design is) and you prove that it is true through experiments (which you can't do with ID theory). There is provable evidence of evolution; that's why it is science and ID is not. That doesn't mean ID is baseless or wrong. Perhaps you can teach ID in a social studies classroom, where they also teach about socialism, but neither have a place in a science classroom.

[August1991]

Bump.

Question to Leftists: Why is the State smart but God stupid? Question to Fundamentalists: Why is God smart but the State stupid?

IOW, when should a minority dictate to a majority what is acceptable? Why not let the masses, several hundred million or billion, freely decide?

----

Religion, a good religion, does precisely that. The rain falls on the just, and the unjust.

Edited September 7, 2007 by August1991

[cybercoma]

Why is the apple red and the orange orange?

[M.Dancer]

Most people on the center or left believe that when left alone, free markets will result in a brutal form a social Darwinism where a small minority of 'survivors' enjoy most of the rewards.

Okay, I no longer know which side I'm on. I tend to believe that left alone, busines thrives and the market flourishes. The difference between a biological model and the market is:

A biological model has a finite amount of food, the market on the other hand thrives on capital, and a flourishing market creates capital thereby creating more opportunities and creating more capital. No matter ho many mega corps there are, buying out smaller companies, there are always smaller companies being formed and small companies expanding and growing into larger ones.

[M.Dancer]

Precisely. The Left miraculously sees a need for the 'State' among people but just as miraculously doesn't see the need for 'God' in the universe.The Left wholly rejects "Intelligent Design" but it willfully accepts "Intelligent State".

This is the contradiction.

No it isn't . In fact it isn't even close to being comaprable. The state isn't a non corporeal entity. It is made up of people and the people give it direction.

If I were to believe the juxtaposition being suggested and were to be a lefty: the universe has evolved organically, so should our political framework....

....there is only an analogy there if you are a yoga master.

The universe has evolved organically, so should our subways..........

[M.Dancer]

Can you explain the big difference between "not science" and "obviously false"?

The Mona Lisa is not science

The perpetual motion theory is obviously false.

Easy?

[gc1765]

Precisely. The Left miraculously sees a need for the 'State' among people but just as miraculously doesn't see the need for 'God' in the universe.

It's not a contradiction at all. I'm sure many leftists would love to have God (rather than the state) distribute wealth more evenly. However, they also realize that no amount of praying will get rid of poverty. They do think, rightly or wrongly, that the state does have the power to do so.

[margrace]

When people realize that God is everything we are and that we are responsible for ourselves then maybe things will improve. Teaching about a grandpa in the sky is plain crazy, we are all God.

[kimmy]

The significant problem with Intelligent Design is that there's no observable evidence of this supposed intelligent creator, no observable evidence of his actions or inputs anywhere into the process of creation.

By contrast, the state's existence is easy to prove. "Intelligent State" may be somewhat debatable, but surely nobody disputes that such an entity exists, and that its actions have an impact on the economy. Even in an ideal free market, the state has a significant effect on the economy: it is among the largest employers and largest consumers (rivaled perhaps only by the largest of private corporations) as well as regulating monetary policies and tax policies. In an economy such as Canada or the United States, the government's footprints become even larger: there are subsidies to industries, business incentives or preferential taxation to stimulate business, transfer payments to individuals, purchasing of products such as education or healthcare services, and so on.

The attempt to equate "Intelligent Design creation" with "Intelligent State economy" fails because the state's actions are easy to identify and prove.

-k

[bk59]

This is a nice attempt at creating a contradiction where there is none.

The article in the OP is a criticism of another (the link is in the article). Except that the criticism doesn't quite get what the original article was saying. It misrepresents the original and then uses that as a springboard to say that supporters of the "economics of the left" are no different than the supporters of intelligent design.

So why no contradiction? First, ID claims to be a science. It then claims the existence of an omnipotent designer responsible for creating / guiding life into its present form. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent designer, therefore ID cannot be science. The problem with ID is that it claims to be something that it is not. Teach ID in religion class if you want, but not science class.

The "economics of the left" claim that the economy needs intervention in order to ensure that the playing field remains level for everyone (e.g. trying to prevent insider trading). The "left" claims that the state, the government, is the institution that should do the interfering / regulating. Not only is it extremely easy to prove the existence of the state, but it is also easy to prove that the state can influence the economy. (If it did not influence the economy then why is it that people advocating completely free markets keep complaining about how the state is interfering?) There may be debate over how the state should interfere, but there is no contradiction in saying that the actions of the state can help to regulate the economy (because they actually do affect the economy).

[August1991]

This is a nice attempt at creating a contradiction where there is none.

The article in the OP is a criticism of another (the link is in the article). Except that the criticism doesn't quite get what the original article was saying. It misrepresents the original and then uses that as a springboard to say that supporters of the "economics of the left" are no different than the supporters of intelligent design.

There is a contradiction, and the originating article is facile.

(BTW, Galbraith is the son of Galbraith and Galbraith never won a Nobel Prize and indeed, his ideas are no longer discussed. The son is attempting to protect the father's name. Like many sovereignists in Quebec or US Southerners, it is hard to admit defeat. The fact is that the Friedman neo-classicals won and Galbraith - father - is wrong. Now then, Friedman is also wrong but in a way that is far more subtle than Galbraith ever imagined. We're still waiting for an answer.)

I have thought about this thread and I don't know if I can do it justice now. It has gone off weirdly in different directions. When kimmy proved the existence of the "State" but left the existence of "God" to conjecture, I realized that I had entirely misstated my point.

----

The contradiction is the following: Atheists readily accept that the universe has no governor. Yet Leftists (often atheists) refuse to accept that civilized society can have no governor.

The other contradiction is that: Religious people believe that God must exist to have created such order in the Universe. Yet religious people (often rightists) refuse to accept State organization of society.

It seems to me that Libertarians should be atheists and Socialists should be Christians. This is the contradiction.

Edited October 7, 2007 by August1991

[DarkAngel_]

theres a genealogist, forget his name, but he came to the conclusion (through observation) that protein structures could not have been formed by random properties... but instead seem to fall together naturally by a force either not discovered or undetectable, the generations of Geno-mutation did not just happen through natural selection, but by interactive mutation breaking off parts of the Geno type and leaving the rest behind, sometimes paring up to a new gene and mutating another cultured Geno type... in other words Darwin was correct but not fully, and there is potential in intelligent design (which by the way may have nothing to do with a god or deity, but if it did that would be soooo cool, even though I'm atheist.)

It seems to me that Libertarians should be atheists and Socialists should be Christians. This is the contradiction.

wow, how rude lol. religion is absolute, so is the state so: they oppose each other, the scale of justice is defined by both sides... the fight is hardly necessary by religious groups (often rightists)

and stubbornly followed by simpletons on the left. you see its the scientists and researchers who should make the truth be known and debated, and only between them! free idea's and sharing of knowledge may perpetuate codesendence but its hardly a contradiction, just an odd circumstance.

if only we had podiums like in greece, where we could freely share our theories, i bet all you religious folk would like that, but remeber, every idea is open to critisism and the right to be proven wrong.

as for the politics... this is a moral/religous forum right? what does this have to do with that: simplify for me please?

(because "Intelligent State economy" just seems like a working structure of argirithms, statistics, and stock transfers. ya know, the free market)

Edited October 7, 2007 by DarkAngel_

[trex]

one thing i dont agree with is this polarization of left and right, with left being godless while the right has some sort of implicit connection to god. that is false. its like those who claim that they have god on their side, not "the others", in this case giving rise to the notion that if you are religious, you must be politically on the right. therefore being religious you must vote for the right wing party... completely baseless. is this just another form of political manipulation? oh yes.

[DarkAngel_]

is this just another form of political manipulation? oh yes.

well you just cant genralize it like that... what of the individual reason for choosing the right, what you say is an insult to the working govemental body. granted its far from perfect, and often unaccepable but genrally its the ignorant mass that are to lazy to learn 'factual data' that influence popular opinion, at least on this "rightous" governmental side... i agree though that it still leaves it unjustified.

again, if only greece didn't fall and alexandria burn *tear*