Monday, May 09, 2005

Intelligent Design Research Design

I have been wondering whether it might be possible to get serious money from one or more institution dedicated to Creation Science by proposing to do CS based research? I'm not a biologist or anything (although my MA work was in Physical Anthropology), but I do not imagine that many credentialed biologists are publishing CS oriented papers or doing CS oriented research. I might even argue that credentials are a sure sign that I have been brainwashed by the secular humanists and make my incompetence a selling point.

As I figure it, CS involves the metaphysical assumption that some supernatural entity created all living things in more or less the form they are in now. This miraculous event explains everything and precludes any meaningful scientific research; therefore, it should be a breeze to come up with research projects (not unlike some postmodern cultural studies program). Such projects need only glorify the supernatural entity (being careful to avoid too much specificity) or contain some tautology that affirms CS. In the alternative, we could examine the biological world as text in a kind of hermeneutics, subject to the Bible of course.

Since much of the evidence for evolutionary theory has been explained as having been produced by Satan, the Great Deceiver, one might fruitfully (in the sense of doing very little work to get a final product) conduct a study that identifies certain Satanic Markers. Dating techniques imply ages before Genesis? The isotopes are marks of the devil, and anywhere these are found, we can conclude that Old Nick has been hard at work. Fossils imply intermediate forms that are no longer extant? Any such forms are Satanic monstrosities and evil deviations from the perfection of Creation! Satan is everywhere turning us to secular humanism and hip hop music.

What good would such a project do? None, unless I get paid to do it. Also, we would learn to recognize the devil's work product rather than jumping to some scientifically based conclusions about descent with modification. The best part is that I would not have to do any actual work myself but could just reinterpret something a real biologist has done. And peer review? Forget about it. How picky can they possibly be? These are people who do not understand the scientific method at all, and my minimal understanding of it puts me way ahead of the game.

How can I in good conscience engage in such charlatanry, you might ask, knowing how morally scrupulous I usually am. Easily, since I do not believe I will be doing any harm, and I will be providing entertainment value/solace to the CS set. Let's face it; only a small percentage of us will ever use evolutionary theory or even give it much thought, and the existence of CS will not detract from the enjoyment of evolutionary theory by the world. A lot of folks need CS to keep them from questioning their faith, and I fear that they may be so morally fragile that the confrontation with science could turn them into anti-social nihilists replete with oversized trousers and baseball caps askew. Moreover, channeling CS money into research should reduce funds for political action to cram CS down schoolchildren's throats. Also, if I am successful, I am sure to get on TV to debate evolutionists and can write a book or two. This can do a lot to assuage an uneasy conscience, I assume.

Thanks to Deinonychus Antirhoppus (http://www.steveverdon.com/archives/evolutioncreationism/002238.html)for the inspiration.

No comments: