|
Indeed, if ever there were a view of economics that builds in the blind, purposeless processes of trial-and-error, specialization, and complexity (the hallmarks of the Darwinian algorithm) it is Smiths invisible-hand economics -- the Austrian variants of which are the most strikingly evolutionary in character.This article is right on target.[snip]
A further, delicious irony in all of these quibbles about the relative merits of Intelligent Design comes in the fact that conservative proponents of ID may have borrowed their tactics directly from the left. According to philosopher Stanley Fish, writing in Harpers: [The teach the controversy battle cry] is an effective one, for it takes the focus away from the scientific credibility of Intelligent Design -- away from the question, Why should it be taught in a biology class? -- and puts it instead on the more abstract issues of freedom and open inquiry. Rather than saying were right, the other guys are wrong, and there are the scientific reasons why, Intelligent Design polemicists say that every idea should at least get a hearing; that unpopular or minority views should always be represented; that questions of right and wrong should be left open; that what currently counts as knowledge should always be suspect, because it will typically reflect the interests and preferences of those in power. These ideas have been appropriated wholesale from the rhetoric of multiculturalism --
Thanks for the ping!