Intelligent design not a serious competitor

My reply to Jon Kaus: First, I do not claim that natural selection doesn’t use chance. As such, his request that I explain how evolution doesn’t use chance is misdirected. My view is that it’s a mistake to think that evolution/natural selection is a purely random process.

If Kaus believes evolution is a purely random process, he is mistaken. Second, Kaus still insists that the topsy-turvy logic of evolution, whereby mind is an effect of mindless processes, is a contradiction of logic or renders logic “nonexistent.”

His case for these startling claims consists of a series of three questions, all of which express doubt about the reliability of minds that come about via evolution. Unfortunately, his questions do nothing more than give expression to his inability to fathom how his wonderful brain, and most of its activities could have had such humble origins as those offered by evolution. But what Kaus and many others can’t fathom does not warrant the charge of logical contradiction. I can’t fathom how Kaus’ God was able to create a universe by a mere utterance but I appreciate that there is no logical contradiction in the idea.

Third, the point of my asking Kaus about what public schools were keeping from students was to suggest that evolution-only biology courses are no more a threat to freedom of thought than is a heliocentric-solar-system-only astronomy class. For the record, I am not at all opposed to our schools offering courses that examine and discuss speculative, difficult to confirm ideas and theories.

But offering intelligent design as a serious scientific competitor to evolution is, at present, educationally irresponsible.