| If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced? —Percy Bysshe Shelley |
Teach the Controversy June 6, 2007
Posted by Rastaban in : Evolution & ID, Naturalism , add a commentOne thing advocates of teaching Intelligent Design (ID) in school like to say is why not expose kids to both sides and “teach the controversy.” I’m actually very sympathetic to this approach. The goal of education is to learn how to reason and evaluate evidence on your own, not merely have your head loaded up dogmatically with “facts.”
However, there’s no scientific controversy between evolution and ID; therefore no appropriate way to present the controversy in science class. ID relies on abandoning the scientific method and declaring that despite all the scientific evidence, evolution (at least macro-evolution) does not occur.
There is a controversy, of course. But it’s not a scientific controversy. (more…)
More Unintelligent Design May 2, 2006
Posted by Rastaban in : Evolution & ID, Non-Existence Arguments , add a commentIntelligent Design advocates like to claim that evolution can’t explain the existence of “irreducible complexity” in humans and other species. But they would be much better served worrying about the far greater difficulty Intelligent Design faces: how to explain mistakes and flaws in the “design” of humans and their world — or to put it another way, how to explain “blunders” by the intelligent designer. (After all, the intelligent designer is God, and God is supposed to be infallible.)
The latest example of a design “oversight” in humans was reported yesterday by EurekAlert!. Researchers at the Univ. of Calif San Diego School of Medicine have discovered the existence of certain T-cell molecules called “Siglecs”, “immune-dampening proteins that bind to sialic acids” which (more…)
Intelligent Design Unveiled February 21, 2005
Posted by Rastaban in : Evolution & ID, Naturalism , add a commentNatural History magazine (4/02) has a set of articles on intelligent design: three by intelligent design advocates Michael J. Behe, William A. Dembski, and Jonathan Wells, followed by three responses by Kenneth R. Miller, Robert T. Pennock, and Eugenie C. Scott. Then an interesting article about the history and strategy of intelligent design advocates by Barbara Forrest. And last, Ian Tattersall weighs in on science vs. religion and argues that they are not really in conflict!
At least, they would not be in conflict, he seems to say, if religionists would only stay in their place — which is to reveal timeless, absolute truths–and stay out of the scientific realm — which deals with knowledge that is provisional and anything but absolute. Tattersall writes:
“How can we make progress in science if what we believe today cannot be shown tomorrow to be somehow wrong or at least incomplete? Religious knowledge is in principle eternal, but scientific knowledge is by its very nature provisional.”
He goes on to say
“scientists are in pursuit of knowledge about mundane realities and are not in the business of revealing timeless truths.”
True enough. But has he succeeded in setting up “non-overlapping magisteria” (as I believe Stephen J. Gould described it) between science and religion?
He has not. The distinction between absolute and provisional truth is not a distinction of subject matter but rather a distinction of the nature of knowing. (more…)
