You might well think that any association between Dubya and the word ‘intelligent’ is, at best, tenuous and most likely an oxymoron.

Yet here we have America’s leading ‘monkeyman’ wading into a debate about science teaching in US state schools on the side of teaching the theory of ‘intelligent design’ alongside the theory of evolution.

If you’re new to this particular debate then there’s a pretty good explanation of this issue to be found here, which covers the basics, but the general gist of things is that this all amounts to an attempt to sneak the teaching of creationism into schools by the back door - ‘intelligent design’ is not science, its theology dressed up to look like science.

As you might expect, the main line of attack is against Darwinian evolution although supporters of ID make all sorts of claims as regards is relevance to other branches of the sciences including physics.

Now I could go into a detailed rebuttal of ID here, but I won’t - because the best rebuttal of all has already been provided by the 20th Century’s most iconic scientist; Albert Einstein, without him even realising it.

Einstein, one should note, was a Jew and a beleiver in God - it’s a matter of record that in considering the orderly nature of the universe he saw the ‘hand of God’ at work. That’s not to suggest he believed necessarily in an interventionist God, one who involves himself in the day-to-day running of the universe, rather he took the view that God, as the creator, had ordered things just-so at the very beginning of the universe - the ‘Big Bang’ - such that it would go on to develop in an orderly fashion and such a way as to ensure that it would give rise, eventually, to life.

To some small extent, therefore, Einstein held beliefs that were compatible with the modern theory of intelligent design, although he never suggested, as the proponents of ID do, that God intervened in matters and did a bit of tweaking after setting up the initial conditions for the universe.

It was this belief which led Einstein, on being shown the early work in the field of quantum mechanics, to comment:

“Quantum mechanics is very impressive. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory yields a lot, but it hardly brings us any closer to the secret of the Old One. In any case I am convinced that He doesn’t play dice.”

Well, more than half a century on from that statement, quantum mechanics has held its own as a scientific theory without anyone every getting close to offering a scientific refutation of it: it still plays dice with the universe regardless of Einstein’s reaction to it, a reaction which was to isolate him from the scientific mainstream during the latter part of his life.

And on that basis my rebuttal of intelligent design is simply this - forget Darwin and evolutionary biology, if proponents of intelligent design wish it to be regarded as a science then the must offer a coherent and scientifically grounded refutation of quantum mechanics; nothing less will do. And untill they do that, intelligent design has no place being taught as a scientific theory.

A few weeks back I signed up to this pledge over at Pledgebank:

“I, James Graham, will ‘blog for victory’ on the 10th of August by writing a post about the need for House of Lords reform, and link to the Elect the Lords campaign website but only if 20 other bloggers will too.â€?

Well, today’s the day and here I am, as good as my word, with a few thoughts on reform of the House of Lords.

Frankly it should be self-evident that an unelected second chamber; one still partially populated, to a lesser extent than was once the case, by people whose sole claim to a role in government is that a distant ancestor once ‘put out’ for the reigning monarch or their offspring: or didn’t get put out when their wife did the requisite ‘putting out’; has no place in a modern democracy.

So what’s the problem? If reform is so obviously needed then why does Parliament continue to make such an almighty hash of sorting the whole thing out?

Once again the answer’s obvious. Reforming the House of Lords requires the passing of a law which, in turn, is drawn up by the government of the day; a government which obviously has a vested interest in trying, as much as possible, to ‘load the dice’ in their own favour in order to ensure support for their legislative agenda – which means that, inevitably, opposition parties aren’t going to back the proposals as they’re also going to be trying to load things in their favour. At the same time, even if the government gets a package of reforms through the House of Commons, those measures still have to pass through the House of Lords, so you’re back to asking turkeys to vote for Christmas and then trying to force legislation through on the back of the Parliament Act.

Is it any real wonder, therefore, that the whole process is going round and round in circles and getting nowhere fast?

So how do we break this deadlock?

Well, it seems obvious to me, at least, that if ever there were a constitutional matter requiring use of a plebiscite then this is it. I think it long past time we take part of the question of reforming the legislature away from the legislature which has a series of clear and obviously conflicting interests in the direction this debate takes. Parliament, of course, has to enact the legislation necessary to reform the House of Lords and create a new second chamber but it doesn’t follow that it also has to be the sole arbiter of what that second chamber looks likes and the precise form it takes.

I think it’s time to change the process of Parliamentary reform and let us, the people, decide how we are to be governed.

Our starting point for this has to be, under our present system, a Royal Commission on Parliamentary reform, working to a strict timetable and under terms of reference which specify that its function is to produce two or three solid options for a future second chamber which take into account the overall make-up of the chamber – number of seats and whether these are fully elected, part elected and part appointed and the balance between the two, etc. - and options for the electoral system to be used in electing representatives to the second chamber and the appointment’s process, if the chamber is to have appointed members.

As far as the relative powers and functions of the two chambers are concerned I see little need to make substantial changes; the Parliament Act, of course, has to go as there is no legitimate basis upon which the ‘lower’ house could override a [largely] elected second chamber by such means, and I would certainly wish to see a second chamber take a more substantial scrutiny role not just in terms of legislation but also in a manner akin to the role of Parliamentary standing and select committees. But such things are really by the by, they are operation details to be worked out as the whole package is put together. What really counts is that we sort out a clear set of options for reform and that once these options have been drawn up, we move to a referendum which allows the electorate to choose the way forward.

Let’s be clear, this doesn’t have to be a complicated process. I mean, what do we, the electorate, actually need to decide here? Not the full ‘ins and outs’ of the workings of a second chamber for sure. What concerns us, as citizens, are the simple practicalities of a new second chamber: it is to be a fully elected body or should we allow for people to be appointed to it; and, if so, in what proportion? How do we elect members to the second chamber: do we stick with ‘first-past-the-post’ or use a system of proportional representation; and, if so, which one?

Given a Royal Commission to narrow down the options to no more than two or three viable possibilities for each question there should be no real difficulty in framing appropriate questions for a referendum, one’s which a straightforward enough to allow the public to make an informed decision without first becoming an expert in constitutional law.

Once the referendum has been held and the basic decisions taken by plebiscite, things move back, quite naturally, into the legitimate domain of Parliament; the difference being that now whatever package of reforms has been chosen carries with it the clear mandate of the people. Parliament’s job is then to sort out the detail, frame the legislation and move it to Royal Assent. None of this prevents Parliament debating and working through the legislative detail, but they would be working under a clear expectation that, no matter what else happens, they will enact legislation to bring forward a new second chamber to the basic specifications chosen by the British people.

Having said all that, I suppose I ought to state my own position on this reform and say a little something about the kind of second chamber that I would like to see replace the current House of Lords.

I have to say that I’m by no means convinced that a bicameral Parliament with a second chamber is either the best or only option we should be considering; a unicameral system based on a written constitution and Bill of Rights, a clear separation between the Executive and the Legislature and a functioning Supreme Court with the authority to override Parliament should it deviate from the provisions of the constitution would suit me as much as, if not more than, a new second chamber. However, as a second chamber seems to be the preferred way forward, I would be happy to support such a proposal as well: I fully support the need for reform but would like the opportunity to debate it fully before settling on a particular model.

However, if we are to have a new second chamber then, on balance, I would be inclined to support a proposal in which the majority of members were directly elected but which contained some provision for appointees; certainly no more than 10% of the members of a second chamber should be appointed.

I’m sure the obvious question here is why not a fully elected second chamber? Well, looking at what we do actually get from the existing House of Lord on of the most noticeable differences between that House and the House of Commons is that the former has a sizeable number of independent members; what it Parliamentary parlance are called ‘cross-benchers’ and, to be honest, I quite like the idea of a second chamber retaining a contingent of members who are not exclusively aligned to a particular political party but who bring a, hopefully, independent perspective to the work of the second chamber. So, as I see it, the one key drawback of a fully elected second chamber is that it is unlikely, given the dominance of mainstream political parties, to deliver much in the way of independent non-aligned members.

So, while I would support the idea of a new second chamber including a set proportion of appointees, it would only be on the basis that such members are appointed by an independent commission; one free from political influence and interference and that the appointees should not be actively involved in party politics. I have to say that I’m not too clear how I think this would work in practice, particularly in term of things like the detail of the appointment process and terms of office; it’s simply that I think there’s some merit in retaining a body of members within the second chamber who are politically independent, so its something I think worth debating.

As for elected members I think it obvious that a new second chamber is a prime opportunity to introduce proportional representation; in fact, as there seems to little impetus to even consider electoral reform for elections to the House of Commons then I don’t really thin there’s a viable case for anything but elections by PR to the second chamber. Who knows, maybe having a lower chamber elected by first-past-the-post and a second chamber elected by proportional representation might offer an optimum balance electorally; a ‘best of both worlds’ situation, at least for the time being. If nothing else, conducting elections to the second chamber by proportional representation would give a clear indication of whether and what extent PR might be workable in the context of the House of Commons and highlight any potential benefits and pitfalls in advance of looking at wider electoral reform at Westminster. Beyond that I’m rather agnostic as to which system of proportional representation might work best for a second chamber, although its a debate in which I would take a considerable interest both during the consultations and deliberations of a Royal Commission and in the run up to a subsequent referendum.

Whatever happens, I think the process I’ve outlined is the right, in fact the only effective way forward. Parliament, and the current Labour government has had eight years to deliver on reform of the House of Lords and but for the culling of the majority of hereditary peers, it really hasn’t delivered on its pre-1997 commitments to root and branch reform. I think its obvious that no matter promises a political party might make in opposition on the reform of Parliament; so long as maintaining the status quo favours them while in government, there’s little real prospect of substantive change.

As a result, I think its now time to take at least part of this process out of Parliament’s hands and move things on by different means.

To conclude the pledge, I’ve added a link to Elect the Lords to the blogroll.

Footnote: in light of my previous comments on Treason, nothing in this post should be construed as suggesting any support for the monarchy on my part: references to Royal Commissions and Royal Assent reflect only a need to work with what we’ve currently got in place toward Parliamentary reform until we get around to the abolition of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic.