The treatment of Intelligent Design

Is the theory of Intelligent Design held to abnormal standards by the scientific community?

ID exists in the environment of today, and that environment that can be characterized by multiple, distinct dimensions. These dimensions include time (the year 2006) and field (biology). The comparison of ID to the early years of evolution theory holds all dimensions constant save time. The inherent uncertainty in reliance on historical records presents a challenge in our development of a full understanding of the environment of evolution theory in its early years. Any comparisons we may yet draw will suffice only to describe how the environment may change along this one dimension -- a partial derivative, so to speak, with respect to time.

It is certainly valid to consider a comparison that holds all dimensions, including time, constant save the field of study. To what standard are other scientific theories in their early stages held in the present day? How does the treatment of ID compare with the treatment of new theories in anthropology, seismology, or quantum physics? In other words, what is the partial derivative with respect to field?

Additionally it can be asked whether the treatment of a proposed theory represents a continuous function at the point in question, which is (2006, biology). Is ID held to the same standard as other new theories in biology, or does ID have a different value than other theories at that same point do?

Does the theory of Intelligent Design receive abnormal promotion from its supporters?

In the present day there are undoubtedly individuals and groups whose passion for their own theory, in their own field, is as great as or greater than ID proponents’ passion for ID. How does ID compare to other theories with respect to the following:

• production of for-profit books and other items in support of the theory;
• appearances in mainstream media reports; and
• funds allocated for research and awareness?

If ID does receive abnormal promotion, there are two possible reasons why. First, ID’s proponents may have ulterior motives. The terms “for-profit” and “awareness” hint at this possibility. Second, ID’s proponents may feel that ID is more important, socially and culturally, than other new theories. Quite simply, why? Why is ID so important that it should be thrust into the public consciousness prior to the development of a scientific core of evidence?

I lack the knowledge and means to provide a thorough answer to the questions above. Even so, I believe that ID is not science; that ID’s proponents want it to be given the weight of science; and that they promote it as if ID were better than science. ID's supporters treat ID as a sociocultural phenomenon that cannot be bothered with the deliberate pathways of science. Is it any wonder that ID has received a backlash from the scientific community, even without that community holding ID to a higher standard?

Worth the stretch

Big Ten Wonk Word Of The Day for Thursday, January 19:

lacuna (luh-CUE-nuh) n. An empty space or a missing part. (more)

At first glance, I thought this word would describe a sexual position to be used during a full moon. Or maybe a combination of the two. Guess I was wrong. Bonus points for the add-an-"e" pluralization, though.

A defining characteristic of a Wonk Word Of The Day is its debatable usage. Is it too much of a stretch to use an anatomical term to describe a player's failure to contribute? The fact is that any difficult word that appears in a discussion about sports is probably a stretch simply because it appears in a discussion about sports. At least when Wonk does it, he uses a word that's so far beyond the sports landscape that it's obvious he knows what it really means. Even if it's not always a perfect fit, sometimes it's more descriptive to grasp at a distant comparison than to use a more common, accepted, boring turn of phrase.

Plus I'm always in favor of learning a new word.

Superstition ain't the way

sports fan : superstitious :: dog : licks self

It only takes one. One event so "traumatic" that it forever alters the way you think.

The sports fan in me wasn't superstitious until Game 6 of the 2003 NLCS. I was at home, lying down on my couch, for the first seven innings of the game. Then before the top of the eighth, I sat up. I don't blame myself (wait, that's not 100% true), and I don't think that I caused events a half-mile west along Addison to happen as they did. While Big Ten Wonk has mentioned the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, I think sports fans fall somewhere between Vulcan logic and fantasy. Between causality and coincidence lies superstition.

Superstition happens after just as much as it happens before. When Illinois coughed up a 17-6 lead in the blink of an eye, I thought to myself, "Should I have waited until the TV timeout to start eating my buffalo wings?" When Charles Tillman fell down on the second play from scrimmage, I tried to figure out what I should have done differently. Superstition means second-guessing as much as it means preparing.

I don't really think that I caused any of those things to happen. I understand the concept of the butterfly effect, but I believe that chaos outweighs anything I could do. [The random -- yes, apparently it is random, on a quantum level -- nature of interactions of atomic and subatomic particles means that nothing I would be likely to do could be "heard" above the "noise" of randomness by the time it reached the subject of my attention.] That's the scientific rationalization. But I do second-guess myself all the time. Yes, James probably should have made that jump-hook. But if I had been standing up at the time, would it have gone in?

I'm used to being in control of much of what goes on in my life. My brain constantly evaluates how I do in these matters. I try not to care about the things that I don't control, but with sports, I have decided to care. Caring leads to evaluation, which leads to second-guessing. I don't second-guess whether I should have been sitting in a different seat when Vanderjagt pushed that field goal attempt into immortality. But I do wonder whether Shaun Pruitt would have hit those free throws if I had only used my straw rather than drinking straight out of my water glass.

It's More Fun Being Green

It's like professional wrestling, in a slightly more noble setting.

Medieval Times: Dinner and Tournament is a journey to a time and place that may not have existed. Brave knights, Andalusian horses, Dragon's Tail soup, an arena full of weapons, and a dungeon full of implements of torture. Courage. Treachery. Skill. Intrigue. Romance. Oracles. Spotlights. Reverb.

You get the idea.

Above all else, it's a performance, from start to finish. All employees -- whether king, herald, bartender, or wench -- remain in character throughout. They all need to play their roles to create this world for the audience. The audience, in turn, has a part to play...but not necessarily a role. Cheering when you're supposed to doesn't, in itself, convert you from an observer to a participant in this world. Many adults that return to Medieval Times, though, have found one true way to play a role -- supporting the Green Knight.

First, a little background. There are six knights, each identified by his colors -- Red, Black-and-White, Yellow, Blue, Red-and Yellow, or Green -- and each representing a fictional kingdom. Each knight and kingdom has its own backstory, for anyone paying close enough attention. Unique among these is the wicked Green Knight, who hails from the kingdom of Leon, a land known for its liars, cheats, and charlatans. The inhabitants of Leon are unsavory and belligerent characters, despised by the other citizens of the realm, and openly mocked by the king's servants and guards.

A great number of audience members are children, awestruck by the spectacle and indifferent to their knight and kingdom affiliation. Many adults are indifferent as well. But a few adult guests, returning visitors no doubt, request to sit in a particular knight's section. And no one requests the Yellow Knight.

Supporters of the Green Knight are free to play a role that casts them directly into the world created at Medieval Times, time and time again. Adults cheer the Green Knight with passion and devotion that border on the surreal. Whether this is due to an us-against-the-world mentality, or perhaps a desire to play the bad guy, I don't know. Through this role, though, we as adults transport our emotions into this fantasy world, even as our eyes and body remain rooted in reality.

The Green Knight benefits from this expression of emotion as well. All knights salute their supporters, but the eyes of the Green Knight betray the rush he feels when showered with affection. The other knights' supporters came to cheer the spectacle; the Green Knight's supporters came to cheer him. He's Hulk Hogan on horseback.

It's more fun being green. No matter who you are.

A half-assed running diary of the Fiesta Bowl

My pledge to you: This post will contain no analysis of the game itself.

During a pre-game interview, Ohio State head coach Jim Tressel hands sideline reporter Jack Arute a collar stay. My immediate reaction: "One collar stay?" Later in the broadcast, Arute is shown head-on, sporting one sharp-looking point and one awful-looking point on his collar. Did he really need two collar stays and used just the one that Tressel gave him? Did he just need one, but the one Tressel gave him didn't fit his shirt? And is ABC so business-casual that not one off-camera employee is wearing a shirt with collar stays? Is there no VIP wearing a suit today? Couldn't an intern run out to the nearest shopping mall? Shouldn't the hotel concierge have been able to track down a collar stay this morning? And what did Arute do to his shirt in the first place to screw up the collar?

Quite the flashy graphic on the roles played by Notre Dame quarterback Brady Quinn. My favorite part? They misspelled the last name of head coach Charlie Weis (added an extra "s"). There are 8,643 unemployed college grads in Cook County, Ill., alone that would love to earn $12 per hour as a spell- and fact-checker for ABC Sports. Doesn't a major telelvision network understand the benefits of interns?

Late in the first half, Arute mentions that Ohio State's top three linebackers have been growing their hair long in tribute to Pat Tillman. All well and good...except that Bobby Carpenter, A.J. Hawk, and Anthony Schlegel originally made an agreement not to cut their hair until they won a national championship...as reported by ABC on their September 10, 2005, broadcast of the Texas-Ohio State game. Selective reporting doesn't get any better than this.

Well, it took Brent Musburger until the third quarter to mention that A.J. Hawk is dating Brady Quinn's sister, Laura. And it took another ten minutes for the announcers to stop talking about it. We've seen a pre-recorded clip with Hawk; a replay of Laura's anguished reaction in the crowd when Hawk sacked Quinn a few moments ago; a pre-recorded clip with Ohio State quarterback Troy Smith; and a sideline interview with Laura, in which she admitted her protective instinct as an older sister, as well as the 21-7 deficit faced by Notre Dame, has her pulling for the Irish.

Ever play the "Which celebrity does he/she look most like" game? Well, it's not really a game, but I find it easier to use a well-known person as a starting point and then modify as appropriate. For example, one of my friends looks like Dina Meyer except about 5'4" with darker, straighter hair. I used to think that another of my friends looks like she could be Brady Quinn's sister. Now that I've seen Brady Quinn's real sister, though, I can no longer use that comparison. I broke even this weekend, though, because after seeing a friend's blond highlights, I decided he looked like he could be the bad guy in a Die Hard movie. My brother was the only one to get that.

Abrupt ending in three, two, one...