Intelligent Design

Alex · 11-09-2005, 02:57 PM

Probably goes without saying that I think ID is hooey (because I think all religion is hooey). But it is also not science.

It offers up not predictions about the world around us, it explains nothing (insofar as "it is unknowable" is not an explanation) and as preferred by most proponents, it requires an actor that exists outside the physical laws of the universe and therefore to enter it into scientific discussion would render all science meaningless because one of the fundamental axioms of scientific exploration is that the laws of the universe are constant across the universe and time (not that they haven't changed, but that when they have it is do to other purely physical forces). All intelligent design does is refute another theory and if Darwinian evolution is incorrect (in its basic principles, many more minor elements of his theory have been refined or changed over the last 150 years) there is already a process discussed in science classes for discovering that falseness and it doesn't require simply shrugging your shoulders and saying "god is a tricksy."

Why is intelligent design only offered for debate in biology classes? If true, it would be equally shattering to every realm of science tought in schools. It would redefine chemistry, physics, the earth sciences, mathematics, and every discipline built upon these. The founders of Intelligent Design have discovered a scientific methodology have "evidence" of a fundamental fact of the universe so tremendous as to undo centuries of scientific examination and they just want to apply it to biology? And not even all of biology (I'm guessing "because someone made it that way" is not the answer they'd want to "why does aspirin work") but just to one subfield of biology. No, not even to a subfield but rather just one aspect of one subfield of one field of scientific exploration.

They get their knickers in a bunch over room 103 talking about non-deitic origins in life but don't seem to care that in 104 they are talking about non-deitic origins for matter and energy.

It's kind of like inventing the wheel and then only ever using it to make lazy susans.

11-09-2005, 02:57 PM	#5
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Probably goes without saying that I think ID is hooey (because I think all religion is hooey). But it is also not science. It offers up not predictions about the world around us, it explains nothing (insofar as "it is unknowable" is not an explanation) and as preferred by most proponents, it requires an actor that exists outside the physical laws of the universe and therefore to enter it into scientific discussion would render all science meaningless because one of the fundamental axioms of scientific exploration is that the laws of the universe are constant across the universe and time (not that they haven't changed, but that when they have it is do to other purely physical forces). All intelligent design does is refute another theory and if Darwinian evolution is incorrect (in its basic principles, many more minor elements of his theory have been refined or changed over the last 150 years) there is already a process discussed in science classes for discovering that falseness and it doesn't require simply shrugging your shoulders and saying "god is a tricksy." Why is intelligent design only offered for debate in biology classes? If true, it would be equally shattering to every realm of science tought in schools. It would redefine chemistry, physics, the earth sciences, mathematics, and every discipline built upon these. The founders of Intelligent Design have discovered a scientific methodology have "evidence" of a fundamental fact of the universe so tremendous as to undo centuries of scientific examination and they just want to apply it to biology? And not even all of biology (I'm guessing "because someone made it that way" is not the answer they'd want to "why does aspirin work") but just to one subfield of biology. No, not even to a subfield but rather just one aspect of one subfield of one field of scientific exploration. They get their knickers in a bunch over room 103 talking about non-deitic origins in life but don't seem to care that in 104 they are talking about non-deitic origins for matter and energy. It's kind of like inventing the wheel and then only ever using it to make lazy susans.
	Submit to Quotes