AN ODD editorial appears in the Indiatimes, from one of India’s largest media companies: Design argument and beyond. It says:
One of the core arguments of Intelligent Design is that the fundamental constants of physics and chemistry are just right or fine-tuned to allow the universe and life as we know it to exist. They are precisely the values needed to have a universe capable of producing life.
This is a re-hashing of the anthropic principle (which has several variants), but the editorial writer arbitrarily applies it to Intelligent Design (ID). This is seldom done, because the anthropic principle has only the most tenuous connection to ID. In fact, other than being an untestable conjecture, there is really no connection at all.
The proponents of ID usually claim that it’s a biological “theory” which “explains” certain biological phenomena. We might have missed it, but we’ve never seen them mention the anthropic principle, or claim that ID is the answer to the whole universe. Of course, in their more private moments — when they’re free to admit their religious motivations — they’re probably pleased to attribute everything to a Designer. But in public they pretend to be advocates of a scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, and they restrict ID to biology.
Nevertheless, the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids) may be breaking out of their niche. In their latest blog article, Argument for Design Is International: India’s Economic Times Columnist Considers the Cosmology, they appear to latch onto that editorial in Indiatimes as if it were some kind of scientific breakthrough supporting their creationist public relations efforts. Excerpt:
What many people observing the debate over intelligent design and evolution don’t get is that intelligent design is not merely an American phenomenon. As the debate continues in every corner of the globe, design proves to be an interesting and legitimately explorable scientific concept.
There’s not much more to the Discoveroid article than calling attention to the editorial from India, which is hardly a grand confirmation of ID. In fact, the Discoveroids have done nothing more than pointing out that they’re not alone. This is rather thin stew for someone looking for evidence that ID has any scientific value.
Nice try, Discoveroids. But you’ve struck out once again.