It is said that someone asked the 13th Century Sufi jester Nasrudin
to guess what held in his hand.
“Give me a clue,” says Nasrudin.
“It’s shaped like an egg. It’s egg sized. It looks, tastes, and
smells like an egg. It’s white and yellow inside. It’s liquid before
you cook it, and then it gets hard. And it was laid by a hen.”
“I know!” said Nasrudin. “It is some kind of cake!”

Now Nasrudin was making a point that there are times when every day
logic needs to be set aside. On the other hand, it sounds
suspiciously like the convoluted logic of an advocate of intelligent
design as it is being presented.

I really have no problem with intelligent design. Of course my
concept of intelligent design may well wrinkle the hair shirt undies
of many religion focused folks. Note that the issue is always
couched as intelligent design versus evolution. Did not one of the
brain trust delving into intelligent design ever consider that
evolution may well be simply the laboratory notes of the designer,
or designers as the case may be?

Now I do take exception to folks who promote intelligent design and
advocate “Of Pandas and People” (Foundation for Thought and Ethics)
as an alternate science book. Not that I’m against new text books
but one would think a responsible school system would choose books
that were at least advocated by a majority of the academic types in
the field being presented. Not so with “Of Pandas and People.”
While there are some credentialed folks hawking the book, they seem
to be in the minority. With rare exception, the reviews around “Of
Pandas and People” tag it as a thinly disguised religious text.

Intelligent design could be a real asset in the school system if it
were in itself designed intelligently. I have no problem with
introducing the idea that all theories are open for discussion or
that people should develop a thirst for truth that leaves the door
open for endless possibilities. There is something pretty spiffy
about having a teacher explain that we don’t know all the answers.
I don’t even have a problem with introducing intelligent design as a
possible mitigating factor as long as the teacher does not go on to
profess only one explanation for that intelligence or one version of
exactly what transpired at the hands of that intelligence.

Of course my concept of intelligent design is far removed from that
of the intelligent design conspirators. Mine would have the idea
presented in such a way as to open the door to endless
possibilities. They seem to be dedicated to the stealth introduction
of one theological construct in the schools. Mine would leave open
the possibility that the concept of intelligent design is not
adversarial to the established concepts of evolution. They appear
dedicated to the idea that there can be only one designer who is
more into magic and less into science. Mine would open the mind,
theirs, by design, will close it.

Dragon /|\