Well, the proponents of I.D. tend to claim that they make no opinion on who/what the designer might be and therefore does not relate to religion.
My feeling is that I.D. is simply not science. You can't throw in an unfalsifiable supernatural force/entity into a theory and claim it is scientific theory.
Besides, there are explanations of how complex mechanisms in cells (the primary argument of I.D.) could have evolved. One has to bear in mind that complex cells took some two billion years to evolve, it's not like this complexity happened overnight.
I still like the proposal that the Flying Spaghetti Monster get equal time with ID as a scientific theory - especially given the proposal that as a gesture of respect it must be taught in full Pirate Regalia.
My feeling is that I.D. is simply not science. You can't throw in an unfalsifiable supernatural force/entity into a theory and claim it is scientific theory.
Mine as well. It makes me very angry, in a spluttering manner.
Hmm...from the article flea linked to:
For one thing, I.D. is not Biblical literalism. Unlike earlier generations of creationists, proponents of intelligent design do not believe that the universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old, or that the fossil record was deposited during Noah’s flood. (Indeed, they shun the label “creationism” altogether.) Nor does I.D. flatly reject evolution: adherents freely admit that some evolutionary change occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative Christian groups—and although I.D. plainly maintains that life was created—it is generally silent about the identity of the creator.
So it's even more clever than I thought! It's a baby step away from the Theory of Evolution and towards Creationism, wrapped in a more palatable coating.
One of my favorite ID conversations was with a cow-orker last year.
Him: "Well, the 'Theory of Evolution' is just a
theory.
That means it's not true."
Me: "Yep. Like the
Theory
of Gravity. Don't bother yourself about the fact that "Theory" is a commonly used term."
You can't throw in an unfalsifiable supernatural force/entity into a theory and claim it is scientific theory.
Like that Far Side cartoon with a bunch of mathy stuff on a black board, then a spot with "a miracle happens here" and then more mathy stuff. The prof points at the miracle section, saying, "You might want to be a little more specific here."
It makes me very angry, in a spluttering manner.
This is both a reasonable and natural reaction.
Like that Far Side cartoon with a bunch of mathy stuff on a black board, then a spot with "a miracle happens here" and then more mathy stuff. The prof points at the miracle section, saying, "You might want to be a little more specific here."
Sidney Harris, actually. I linked to it here:
DXMachina "Natter 37: Oddly Enough, We've Had This Conversation Before." Aug 2, 2005 7:53:54 am PDT
Again, I'm okay with churches teaching ID. But it is a faith-based argument at heart, as you guys have pointed out. There's nothing that says a Creator couldn't have Created evolution...but once you follow the scientifically provable path of evolution back to it's (excuse me) genesis, then you've hit the limit of what you should be teaching in public school.
After that, it's what you believe, religion-wise, and in a heterogenous society, it's not a healthy plan to limit your public school education to one dogma.
The ID-ers' talk about "we shouldn't limit what theories we teach" is a bit dishonest. They want to teach a form of faith-based Creation, but I doubt they'll accept the teaching that all people climbed through a hole into this, the fourth, world, after Coyote flooded the last world.
