Intelligent Design debate in the Netherlands

Weblog William A Dembski - ID proponent, mathematician and philosopher

Recently a fierce debate erupted in our little country by the North Sea about an issue that is relatively new to the wider audience in the Netherlands: Intelligent Design (i.e. the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence).

Out of personal interest I've been reading about the ID debate in the USA for the last two years or so. I think it is exciting that this discussion is now also starting to heat up in our notoriously 'tolerant' country. It is interesting to see how many scientists, journalists and politicians react as soon as somebody suggests that there might be traces of intelligent design in nature! Many people rather believe that complex structures, such as DNA molecules, are the product of chance and coincidence than intelligent design. 'Design' seems to be a no-no word in natural sciences! And Rodney Blevins (a.k.a. The Donkey's Mouth) tells us why:

You see, if there is a God, or a Designer of some kind, then that must ultimately mean that there are standards that exist outside of ourselves, even outside of our known universe. This is what the atheist and the evolutionist fear in their very heart of hearts. Make no mistake, that is the real impetus behind the attacks on ID.

An innocent weblog entry from Dutch Minister of Science and Education Maria van der Hoeven about a "fascinating conversation" she had with Cees Dekker, professor of Molecular Biophysics and a world-renowned nanophysicist at Delft University of Technology, triggered the commotion. Especially her call for an academic debate about ID caused some heated exchanges in our Parliament and the media.


Even before the publication date, a new book entitled Schitterend ongeluk of sporen van ontwerp? (”Wonderful accident or traces of design?”) co-edited by Cees Dekker, Ronald Meester and René van Woudenberg, attracted similar emotional reactions. It makes you wonder how 'tolerant' and 'open-minded' the Dutch really are!
One of the prominent scientists opposing Maria van der Hoeven's idea of debating ID is Dutch biologist Ronald Plasterk. In a televised column he even said: "Ik ken geen bioloog die intelligent design aandacht waard vindt" ("I don't know a biologist who thinks intelligent design is worth paying attention to").

Well, I am just a stupid Dutchman, but it took me a couple of minutes to find a list with names of scientists (including biologists) who signed their names under this statement:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Click here to download this list (PDF). Scientists listed by doctoral degree or position. Updated January 2005. Free advice for Mr. Ronald Plasterk: try Google!

I never cease to be amazed how some can look at a flower in a clay pot and conclude that the flower in all it's beauty is a product of random chance while the clay pot is undeniably a product of intelligence. [Anonymous posting on atheist website]

Interesting links
Click here and here for more information on Cees Dekker
Homepage Molecular Biophysics Group at Delft University of Technology
Uncommon Descent (ID weblog of William A Dembski)
The Donkey's Mouth (weblog of Rodney Blevins)