Select your localized edition:

Close ×

More Ways to Connect

Discover one of our 28 local entrepreneurial communities »

Be the first to know as we launch in new countries and markets around the globe.

Interested in bringing MIT Technology Review to your local market?

MIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology Review - logo


Unsupported browser: Your browser does not meet modern web standards. See how it scores »

{ action.text }

The New Yorker has a damning piece by Allen Orr on Intelligent Design. It’s also extraordinarily late, of course: Wired devoted a cover to the subject in October of 2004. Orr’s most interesting insight is that the mathematical critique of evolutionary biology by William A. Dembski (pictured) is really very shaky. This matters because Dembski (who is probably the most famous proponent of I.D) represents himself as a hard mathematician correcting the soft science of biologists. Orr writes,

Despite all the attention, Dembski’s mathematical claims about design and Darwin are almost entirely beside the point.

By contrast, modern evolutionary biology has a very robust mathematical foundation. Why isn’t this better known to the general public? Again, from Orr:

Evolutionary biology actually features an extraordinarily sophisticated body of mathematical theory, a fact not widely known because neither of evolution’s great popularizers—Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould—did much math.

Technorati tag:

0 comments about this story. Start the discussion »

Reprints and Permissions | Send feedback to the editor

From the Archives


Introducing MIT Technology Review Insider.

Already a Magazine subscriber?

You're automatically an Insider. It's easy to activate or upgrade your account.

Activate Your Account

Become an Insider

It's the new way to subscribe. Get even more of the tech news, research, and discoveries you crave.

Sign Up

Learn More

Find out why MIT Technology Review Insider is for you and explore your options.

Show Me