Monday, August 01, 2005

Here is a quotation I found on an Intelligent Design website:

"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion."

Basically, it is a way for Christians to try and reconcile evolution and religion. The idea is that evolution is accepted as a theory with the understanding that it is guided by a divine hand. That there is an intelligence behind the design. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this theory. HOWEVER, it has become politicized and some people see it as a way to get religion into the science classroom.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was going to leave this alone, but , what good would I be then?

If you want to believe god created the universe, that is a religious belief and in no way conflicts with SCIENCE.

I you want to believe that our understanding of the natural world is somehow flawed without the recognition of a god, ie, that the natural rules of evolution are not sufficient in explaining the world and the nature of life, that is also a RELIGIOUS belief and it directly conflicts with science.

Intelligent Design is not a theory!
It is not based on the scientific method, it uses specious and contradictory claims , and is loaded with false conclusions based on selected information, none of which are supported by fact.

In my humble opinion, ID is sophistry used in an attempt to to discredit science and naturalism and to increase the influence of christianity in american society. The authors of this throughly discredited idea admit to as much in their own writings. It has no business in any scientific decision on the origins of life.

If anybody does wish to seriously consider this idea it should in the context of a philosophical or religious discussion and it certainly should not be taught as a separate alternative or adjunct
to the Theory of Evolution in any school.

The godless Communist said...

A few other notes on this issue that I did not have time to address while at work.


Here is a quick bio of the hero(The guy who made this nonsense up) of the ID movement.


" Phillip E. Johnson is a retired American law professor and author.
A born again Christian, he is considered the father of the intelligent design movement, which criticizes the theory of evolution, and promotes creationism as an alternative. "

" Johnson has also participated in a movement challenging the scientific orthodoxy that HIV is the cause of AIDS."

What a gem this guy is. How could anybody doubt his motives? After all , everybody knows god caused AIDS to punish gay people for their evil behavior.

Here is the best part.

" Despite the fact that he has no formal background in the biological sciences, Johnson has become a prominent critic of evolutionary theory. Johnson popularized the term "intelligent design" in its current sense in his 1991 book, Darwin on Trial, and he remains one of the best known advocates for the intelligent design movement."

No formal training in biological sciences?? Well then, he must be right. Since his mind is uncluttered with things like knowledge, he can see things as they really are.

Just so we are all clear.
" Intelligent design" is not a scientific disagreement. ID is religion masked as science.


Still Anonymous.

Genevieve said...

thanks for the explanation. I still don't feel like I know enough about it to really comment, but I have to think that it's trying to teach religion in the place of science. Anything that has to do with a divine intervention, in my opinion, should not be taught in public schools.

Malady said...

Definition of Theory:

"Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.

A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture."

You cannot actually test the Big Bang Theory according to scientific method any more than you can test that there is a divine presence. So why is one science and not the other? I don't believe the search for God is a science but let's not get carried away with labels.