Derbyshire’s Crystal Ball

John Derbyshire, the English gentleman who writes often for the National Review Online, hasn’t been faring too well with his predictions recently. On July 1, 2005, he boldly predicted,

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the SCOTUS nominee will not be a white male of European ancestry.

And on July 17, just two days before the nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, he reiterated,

I repeat my bold prediction of July 1st: the SCOTUS nominee will not be a white male of European ancestry.

Funny, though, I can't get anyone to give me odds on this.

Now I find Mr. Derbyshire to be an interesting writer. I quite enjoyed his book Prime Obsession. However, I find his take on the issue of evolution and intelligent design to be rather dogmatic. When asked about his opinion, he curtly said that intelligent design is bunk. Now I am certain that he has read Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. So readily to pronounce something new to be bunk, when many scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers have shown doubts about the prevailing theory, might turn out to be an unwise move. If Mr. Derbyshire’s opinion on intelligent design is construed as a prediction on its going away, as an unsuccessful theory ultimately must, is this an early indication that intelligent design will actually stay for a while? (I am not particularly big on intelligent design, but I am even less big on evolution. I maintain a passing interest in the controversy, as a philosophical observer.)

And by the way, what does Mr. Derbyshire think of cold fusion? What are the odds of cold fusion compared to evolution from nonlife to all the diversity of life?