December 27, 2004

I LIKE HUGH HEWITT'S BLOG BOOK, and I think Hugh understands a lot about blogs, but I think that "intelligent design" theory is, um, highly unpersuasive. Rand Simberg critiques a recent post of Hugh's on that subject.

UPDATE: Over at Volokh (permalink not working), Jim Lindgren writes:

One thing that strikes me about Intelligent Design is that it must have been much more intuitively appealing before the failure of socialism. Socialism in the 1920s--1940s was in part based on the idea that the world had become so complex that central planning was necessary to deal with this complexity. Yet Von Mises was arguing just the opposite, that as the world became more elaborate, no one could plan it. ID seems to be based on an assumption that most conservatives reject in the economic sphere--that as the economy gets more elaborate, to work well it must be the product of the intelligent design of a master planner.

Heh. Indeed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt responds: "I do believe in Intelligent Design --in Christianity, actually-- but the point of my posts yesterday was not to wade into those battles, but to underscore the Washington Post's lousy reporting on the controversy in Dover, Pennsylvania."

MORE: Hugh's book is now up to #66 on Amazon, which to most authors would constitute sufficient proof that there is a God all by itself!