Wednesday, November 02, 2005
  ID, Dover, Derb

Intelligent design is being argued in a town in Pennsylvania, where the school board has taken a pro-choice position, giving the students a chance to see both sides of the dispute.

The "pro-science" fundamentalists are going wild, insisting that students must never be exposed to alternatives.

I notice that Derbyshire at NRO is taking the same fundy position, and mentions an article in the New Criterion.

New Scientist mag, the house organ for Prince Charles's Gaia-worshiping acolytes, ran a similar "let's all get along" article in the 10/29 issue. Discussing the Dover, PA school board case:

There is also a broader lesson for those who oppose ID... Almost everyone involved in the case against the school board is devoutly Christian, and they see no conflict between natural selection and their religion. Portraying evolution as an alternative to religion does no favours to the Darwinian cause. On the contrary, it hands supporters of ID the opportunity to portray the debate in terms of one religion (Christianity) against another (belief in evolution). It devalues science's claim to be a uniquely objective approach to gathering knowledge, and allows proponents of creationism to scare people of faith by telling them that science poses a threat to their society and their values. Atheists and believers should be able to agree that science stands above dogma. It follows where the evidence leads, something ID can never do.

Just fine until the last sentence.

Let's look at the basic question. ID theorizes that the complexity of life implies an intelligence of some kind. The science-ists theorize that there is no intelligence behind the complexity.

Which of those statements follows directly from the evidence? NEITHER ONE.

Basic logic: If statement P is outside the realm of provability, then Not-P is equally outside the realm of provability.

The science-ists are so blinded by their own religious fervor that they can't even see this basic point. Neither side is falsifiable, unless we find direct evidence of the intelligence. We haven't found such direct evidence yet, but it's not inconceivable that some kind of watermark or signature could be coded into DNA, or into some other pattern. If we deliberately blind ourselves to that possibility, or censor all thinking that could lead in that direction, we are profoundly anti-scientific.

Neither "It's God" nor "It's random" is a theory in the strict sense. Each is merely a mindset or teaching technique, and each may help some students understand reality.
 


<< Home

blogger hit counter
My Photo
Name:
Location: Spokane

The current icon shows Polistra using a Personal Equation Machine.

My graphics products:

Free stuff at ShareCG

And some leftovers here.

ARCHIVES
March 2005 / April 2005 / May 2005 / June 2005 / July 2005 / August 2005 / September 2005 / October 2005 / November 2005 / December 2005 / January 2006 / February 2006 / March 2006 / April 2006 / May 2006 / June 2006 / July 2006 / August 2006 / September 2006 / October 2006 / November 2006 / December 2006 / January 2007 / February 2007 / March 2007 / April 2007 / May 2007 / June 2007 / July 2007 / August 2007 / September 2007 / October 2007 / November 2007 / December 2007 / January 2008 / February 2008 / March 2008 / April 2008 / May 2008 / June 2008 / July 2008 / August 2008 / September 2008 / October 2008 / November 2008 / December 2008 / January 2009 / February 2009 / March 2009 / April 2009 / May 2009 / June 2009 / July 2009 / August 2009 / September 2009 / October 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 / January 2010 / February 2010 / March 2010 / April 2010 / May 2010 / June 2010 / July 2010 / August 2010 / September 2010 / October 2010 / November 2010 / December 2010 / January 2011 / February 2011 / March 2011 / April 2011 / May 2011 / June 2011 / July 2011 / August 2011 / September 2011 / October 2011 / November 2011 / December 2011 / January 2012 / February 2012 / March 2012 / April 2012 / May 2012 / June 2012 / July 2012 / August 2012 / September 2012 / October 2012 / November 2012 / December 2012 / January 2013 / February 2013 / March 2013 / April 2013 / May 2013 / June 2013 / July 2013 / August 2013 / September 2013 / October 2013 / November 2013 / December 2013 / January 2014 / February 2014 / March 2014 / April 2014 / May 2014 / June 2014 / July 2014 / August 2014 / September 2014 / October 2014 / November 2014 / December 2014 / January 2015 / February 2015 / March 2015 / April 2015 / May 2015 / June 2015 / July 2015 / August 2015 / September 2015 / October 2015 / November 2015 / December 2015 / January 2016 / February 2016 / March 2016 / April 2016 / May 2016 / June 2016 / July 2016 / August 2016 / September 2016 / October 2016 / November 2016 / December 2016 / January 2017 / February 2017 / March 2017 / April 2017 / May 2017 / June 2017 / July 2017 / August 2017 / September 2017 / October 2017 / November 2017 / December 2017 / January 2018 / February 2018 / March 2018 / April 2018 / May 2018 / June 2018 / July 2018 / August 2018 / September 2018 / October 2018 / November 2018 / December 2018 / January 2019 / February 2019 / March 2019 / April 2019 / May 2019 / June 2019 / July 2019 / August 2019 / September 2019 / October 2019 / November 2019 / December 2019 / January 2020 / February 2020 / March 2020 / April 2020 / May 2020 / June 2020 / July 2020 / August 2020 / September 2020 / October 2020 / November 2020 / December 2020 / January 2021 / February 2021 / March 2021 / April 2021 / May 2021 / June 2021 /


Major tags or subjects:

Carbon Cult
Carver
Constants and variables
Defensible Cases
Defensible Times
Defensible Thymes
Defensible Spaces
Equipoise
Experiential education
From rights to duties
Grand Blueprint
Metrology
Morsenet of Things
Natural law = Sharia law
Natural law = Soviet law
Shared Lie
Skill-estate
Trinity House

Powered by Blogger