The problem is, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory to be discussed alongside Evolution. Lamarckism
an alternative to Darwinian evolution. It was also
, and was discarded once we knew that.
Lamarck proposed his theory, it was shown to be wrong, we threw it out. That's how science works.
Newton's laws of motion were wrong too; we didn't throw them out entirely because they were right most of the time, so today we keep them as useful rules of thumb for everyday situations.
But Intelligent Design isn't like that. Intelligent Design can't ever be proved wrong. In fact, it can't ever be tested in any way at all. That makes it unscientific. Not because it's wrong, but because it's utterly useless. We have no way of knowing whether it's wrong, not ever, not even in principle - so what's the point?
Worse, Intelligent Design was set up that way intentionally, and then its proponents tried - and continue to try - to push it into the science curriculum in schools.
It's not science, because we can't tell if it's wrong.
The IDists know that - and continue to push it as science.
That's fraud.
Now, this is a hobbyhorse of mine (and the Commissar's, of course), and I react more strongly to it than most people. But President Bush, much as I respect the man, is promoting academic fraud, and it has to be pointed out, and it has to be said loud and clear.
There's even worse on the Democrat side of things, unfortunately. Post-modernism from the likes of Chomsky seeks to deny the validity of all Science, not just Evolution, and it's even more pernicious than Creationism and Intelligent Design. Even more actively fraudulent, too. I've taken the fight to the Post-modernists as well, and will continue to do so.
But right now, they're not President.
Oh, and if you want to post a comment suggesting that Intelligent Design is something other than pure bullshit, don't bother. Go here instead. (Of course, given my posting schedule of late, I probably have about three readers left - hi Susie! - so I don't have to worry about that.)
1
Four readers. What amazes me is the absolute inability of the proponents of ID (aka watered-down creationism) to understand what makes science science.
My theory is that the black helicopters are sending out rays making people believe that theology is science. (I'd best adjust my tinfoil hat...). I DEMAND this theory be taught in psychology classes from now on! You can't disprove it, so it must be true!
(Sigh)
Posted by: Kathy K at Wednesday, August 03 2005 08:42 PM (Hy1rZ)
2
Five apparently. :)
Also, I changed the title slightly.
P.S. Invisible, silent black helicopters!
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Wednesday, August 03 2005 08:56 PM (4N+SC)
3
Five, six, who knows how many readers. But I think your comments on ID are exactly correct.
Posted by: Neal at Wednesday, August 03 2005 09:07 PM (pdiJG)
Posted by: Susie at Wednesday, August 03 2005 09:20 PM (PWYyH)
5
i guess i'll be seven then.
I'm Christian, so my views are obvious. I'm Also an engineer, which means that i only go off of science. Do i think Creationism/ID should be taught? Sure. Is it a science, and should it be taught as one? Nope. I've said (at least since i left high school) that it shouldn't be taught as a science because it cannot be observed. From this, now i know that an extension to it is that it cannot be Proved wrong. That's an important distinction that i'd not heard of before all of this today, but it makes sense. The first step i do when someone tells me something is to assume the opposite and work my way to the truth, but there's no opposite here. Now the pieces are falling into place.
Note, this is NOT sarcasm on my part, that's just the way that i think.
:-D
(ps, i gotta say it, you're going to hell, but at least you'll have all the good musicians :-D )
Posted by: tommy at Wednesday, August 03 2005 11:55 PM (OJ+GI)
6
...and one duck.
I'm not opposed to the concept of ID. *shrug* I don't think it's correct, but I'm not opposed to it. I'm even willing to have it be taught in schools, as long as it's pointed out that it's not scientific, can't be proven, and as such is simply another article of faith.
I might be wrong, of course... everything
could have been Created by (a) God. The universe could be riding on the back of an enormous Space Lemur, too. I don't know that it's not, but that don't make it right.
"...enormous Space Lemur." Hmmm...
Posted by: Wonderduck at Thursday, August 04 2005 04:17 AM (ds0+e)
7
I don't go for Intelligent Design, but I think there might be room for just a little teleology in evolution and cosmology.
One of my favourite (possibly untestable) hypotheses is the Final Anthropic Theory, which postulates that the nature of the universe is such that it can only exist if it eventually evolves to a state that possesses infinite consciousness/intelligence. This idea is vaguely based on the apparently inextricable relationship between quantum events and conscious observation.
Posted by: Evil Pundit at Thursday, August 04 2005 06:45 AM (rLLED)
8
The Anthropic Principle in its various forms is interesting, but not, I think, terribly useful.
That the Universe is the way it is because if it was some other way we wouldn't be here to ask the question is simultaneously profound and deeply unhelpful.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, August 04 2005 08:35 AM (4N+SC)
9
Here's a nice op-ed to a college paper discussing the weak anthropomorphic principle and how it relates to ID (also sometimes called the strong anthropomorphic principle). If your interested, there's also a link to the original lecture that generated this letter on the website.
Weak Anthropomorphic Principle vs ID
Posted by: Neal at Thursday, August 04 2005 10:14 AM (OdCKj)
10
Thanks.
You know, when it comes to commenters, it's not quantity but quality that counts.
I'll take half a dozen thoughtful comments over a two-hundred-post flame war any day.
(Roger Simon manages to get quantity
and quality, possibly because he is such a thoroughly nice guy himself. But he's one of a very few.)
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, August 04 2005 10:28 AM (4N+SC)
11
Ha! Well, I just started blogging again, at a new site and no longer using a nick. My other blog we sort of a middle of the road dweller, but now I have no commenters, no technorati, no ecosystem, nada. But, it's kind of cool to start from scratch and see where you end up. Plus, I'm finding all kinds of blogs that I didn't know about, and that's a good thing. Cocooning really does trap your worldview if you're not careful.
Posted by: Neal at Thursday, August 04 2005 11:13 AM (qIC+p)
12
Intelligent Design has a place in schools... if they're the sort of schools that teach Applied Theology, or whatever they're calling it these days. These schools have their charms - my crazed evangelical aunt used to be the principal of one of those schools. But they probably oughtn't be government-financed, and definitely ought not to be financed by my taxes, thankyouverymuch.
Of course Bush is an idiot. But... he's our idiot. I'm generally inclined to do him the mercy of ignoring him when he gets his idiot on in public.
Posted by: Mitch H. at Thursday, August 04 2005 03:13 PM (iTVQj)
13
Of course Bush is an idiot. But... he's our idiot. I'm generally inclined to do him the mercy of ignoring him when he gets his idiot on in public.
As I remarked, this is something I'm touchy about. I don't mind at all if people say,
Yeah, it's wrong, but it's not my number one priority right now.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Thursday, August 04 2005 11:13 PM (AIaDY)
14
We could DO a flame war if you'd like, Grand High Pixy. I dunno what we'd flame
about, but we could do it.
Posted by: Wonderduck at Friday, August 05 2005 12:41 AM (G2sf8)
15
Two points for consideration:
1. Farensic sciences include the examination of whether events were caused by design. e.g. was this fire started intentionally? So to say there is no science in ID may be an oversimplification.
2. A reason that so many are pushing for ID to be taught in schools is the near "religious" insistance on evolution which is far from a complete theory. Much evolution happens as a matter for observation. Some is a good scientific model closely explaining observations. Some of it may one day soon be replaced by new theories. So let's not be "evangelical" about evolution either.
Posted by: StonePiano at Friday, August 05 2005 08:57 AM (KXs4H)
16
1. There are fundamental requirements for scientific theories: they must explain something, they must predict something, they must be falsifiable. ID meets none of these requirements, so it is not a scientific theory. What it is, I don't know, but it's certainly not a scientific theory.
2. Evolutionary Theory is incredibly well supported by evidence. No, it's not a final theory, as evidenced by the fact that it has changed in certain details even over the past decade. But it
is a scientific theory, and it's an extremely reliable one. It's the unifying theory of biology. The only reason anyone insists on it is because people are so bitterly opposed to it on non-scientific grounds. If people argued against the Theory of Relativity in similar ways, there'd be similar insistance in teaching it.
Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is one hundred percent bullshit. It's a scientific fraud created from the ground up to get religion into schools and challenge what its creators see as a threat to their beliefs.
As I said:
Intelligent Design is claimed to be a scientific theory.
A scientific theory must be falsifiable.
ID is not falsifiable.
Therefore ID is
not a scientific theory.
This has been hashed out many times. The proponents of ID know all this, and persist in claiming that ID is a scientific theory. That's fraud.
Don't bother to take this any further - or at least, not here. There are many other web sites and news groups where you can get an education on Evolutionary Theory and have all your false impressions corrected, but I'm not interested in doing it.
Posted by: Pixy Misa at Friday, August 05 2005 09:23 AM (4N+SC)
17
Neal, I have to disagree.
The Strong Anthropic Principle is
not ID, nor is it related to ID.
The SAP hypothesises that the only type of universe which can exist is one which is capable of producing intelligent life. It does not in any way suggest that such universes must be created or designed by any intelligent agent.
SAP might not be falsifiable on its own, though it could be that some future Theory of Everything that includes SAP may be falsifiable.
Posted by: Evil Pundit at Sunday, August 14 2005 02:15 AM (+2/LZ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
