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
