This is Of Pandas and People, the 2nd edition. This is the first known textbook that was widespread and taught Intelligent Design. It has its roots in Creationism. In recent years, Intelligent Design movement has been gaining popularity in the Bible belt and some have even started claiming it as a legitimate science. In certain states, it is a legal part of the curriculum and children can be home schooled in the ethics and teachings of Intelligent Design. My friend posted on my Facebook page about how bad the Intelligent Design "theory" has been "getting treated" from people who claim to be rationally critical of it. I can't blame him; a lot of people who don't know a lot about either Science or Intelligent Design have anything constructive at all to say about it. These are the same lot who would attack George W. Bush's character or Al Gore's personality without a thorough understanding of either their ideas or policies: their disapproval reflects contemporary feelings manifest in media, or their friends' or family's extended networks - and to some that's proof enough. In Science, that's not good enough. My main problem with Intelligent Design is that it is not a Science a) by definition or b) in practice. Neither is it teaching anyone how to apply the principles of Natural Philosophy to further technology, research, and applications in medicine and the world; no, it would rather expouse the philosophies of Creationism. This also has ramifications on the education system, as Intelligent Design expouses the possibility that Creationism is possible. The possibility. At least it's honest, eh? Science usually expouses the same traits but in high schools or lower level education it is taught as fact, not as theory. It has not been thoroughly studied, proved in any appreciable measure, and is not an accepted science. However, this is where things get muddy. In science, consensus doesn't mean squat. My friend Albert, disagrees. He believes that Intelligent Design is not only justified but rather it is more probable than the accepted scientific account of creation. He has some good key points. Consensus itself is not good enough to determine good sciences: remember that at one time people laughed in the faces of Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Galileo when they insisted the world went around the Sun and that the Earth was round. I've italicized Albert's key conjectures in the conversation below. I've also italicized my main points in the conversation below. However, this is not comparable with Galileo's situation: this is a situation when a teaching is neither a science - or a religion. It is trying to bridge the gap between the pseudo-Arts and convert the undecided. And it's main target - America's children. Whether or not you agree with Intelligent Design, you must agree that unless contended, our secular Canadian education is put at risk. So that is why I advocate contention. The modern age is not a time to dwell in the cowardice of the ignorant and the sit in the shadow of the fools. It is a time to really stand up and prove the beliefs you hold so deeply - and not to take for granted that some things are more than they seem. What do you think? Do you agree with Albert - or me? Do you disagree with both? Read on and COMMENT!! Another Facebook Conversation Albert Nguyen wrote at 5:50pm yesterday Slightly offtopic - Expelled, Intelligence Not Allowed, while it doesn't discuss what can be considered life or not, debates on whether Intelligent Design is a viable theory or not. Before you dismiss it as a buncha crockpots thumping bibles, you've got to remember that most of the big proponents of it are scientists as well as atheists, who feel stifled by the communism-like expelling of any idea other than raw darwinianism. | |
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
Posts
3 comments:
ID would not be simply the acknowledgment of the possibility of something, if it wished to be deemed a science. It would be advocating the distinct possibility - that's what a hypothesis does: it either suggests an explanation or is a reasoned proposal that one has to go about proving. It is never an "acknowledgment." I also acknowledge the possibility that the solar system could be a binary system though the facts would prove otherwise. The difference is distinct. Anyone who told you it's basically an acknowledgment of a possibility is trying to deceive you of I.D.'s idealistic roots.
And by the way, Intelligent Design has everything to do with God, and religion. It is the proponent of Creationism.
And I don't assume your knowledge is wiki'd: don't assume that mine is. You can go to any Intelligent Design web site designed by any Intelligent Design believer, pull anything off and I will independently disprove it.
I'm going to have to agree with what Antony's said above, in that the main problem with the proponents of intelligent design are their refusal to subject their views to the scientific method. Whether you believe it is 'true' I.D. or not, the majority of people in American society (and beyond!) who are backing Creationism and Intelligent Design, are, in fact ignoring the scientific method, and claiming that evolution is the work of the devil. Sure, we could argue that I'm just seeing what the media paints them as, and this would be true. What other basis am I to use to judge the movement by than its aspects which are being broadcasted internationally?
To continue, I haven't watched the documentary you speak of, to be perfectly fair, but my knowledge of the 'scientists' who are backing Intelligent Design is that they number in the few hundreds. I'm sorry, but if we're going to talk scientists who support Evolution, let's refer to Project Steve:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
Project Steve is a list of scientists, named Steve, who back Evolution, and Darwinism, as "vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry". Please note the number of signatures.
You (Albert) note that both Intelligent Design and Darwinism utilize 'evolution'. I think perhaps you meant natural selection. Natural selection would be the mechanism, evolution the process as a whole. Darwinism actually doesn't have anything to do with rejecting the possibility of a God, by the way. Darwin did, in fact, believe in God. The possibility of a God 'starting' life is in no way contradictory to 'Darwinism'. As for Intelligent Design, in its 'true' form, utilizing evolution, well, I've heard far, FAR, too many times proponents of I.D. simply use the phrase "WELL I'M NOT RELATED TO A MONKEY OKAY!!!!!!!!"
As we get into the origin of life, this is, in fact, a moot point regarding Evolution. Most evolutionary scientists do not argue in any way that it is proven, and there are studies that are being done to look into the different possibilities. Many evolutionary scientists are Christians, which I'm sure you're aware. Quite simply, the Intelligent Design you're describing is, in fact, Evolution by another name. Evolution as we know it is the process by which life diversified, through natural selection. As far as I'm aware, nothing to do with the origin of life. Of course, feel free to prove me wrong.
If this is really what 'real' Intelligent Design is, then it is a hypothesis on the origin of species, not the proliferation of the different aspects of life. That being the case, then the current Creationist and Intelligent Design movement is even more without basis, for it is misconstruing the very idea it supposedly upholds. Nonetheless, I have yet to see some proof that this is 'real' I.D., so please, share a link. Apologies if I missed it at some point.
-Sean
Well said, Sean.
Post a Comment