Posted on 11/17/2005 11:27:22 AM PST by Nicholas Conradin
Why be picky? I'm marking down "all of the above"!
Why write a lengthy essay when this says it all?
Neither can I. Sounds like schoolyard namecalling.
This is as far as I got before "switching channels": "The problem with Intelligent Design is that it is dumb....."
Once upon a time, humans could not explain thunder, lightning and other natural phenomenons, and so humans invented 'gods' to explain them.
Science has explained so many of these phenomenons, and now people look at cultures that still use 'gods' to explain them as 'inferior' or 'primitive'.
Yet, now those 'superior' cultures invoke the same principle when they cannot explain the formation of eyes or mitochondria. Only, instead of 'gods', the word is 'intelligent design'.
How fascinating.
This is a dumb argument, if I may borrow the author's words. He repeatedly uses the word "dumb" because he lacks an argument.
He never comes to grips with any of the scientific or statistical arguments that people like Michael Behe have presented. Instead, his entire case is, basically, that religion must be banished from science because . . . because it must!
Natural theology is right out, because of that word "theology." And "philosophy" is right out, too.
Well, I have news for him. The common name for science in the early modern period, when science and technology really took off, was "natural philosophy." Philosophy means love of wisdom and involves searching for truth. Natural philosophy involves searching for the secrets of nature.
Not for nothing does Civilization III require the discovery of Theology before you get any Education or Science. In the development of the western world and western science, theology played a key role, because it taught (contrary to the beliefs of most prior religions) that the world is a rational place, that people have free will, and that God welcomes discovery.
Dark Helmet: Now you see that evil will always triumph...because good is dumb.
Name one.
ID is the biological equivalent of the fine tuned universe argument for the existence of God found in philosophy.
"Name one."
You're right.
As much as I believe in an Intelligent designer, there are no real theories that are provable.
But, on the other hand, ID isn't disproved either, other than stated above.
With no 'testable' theories, ID will be hard to prove unless there is a 'revelation' in the scientific world.
The whole debate is fascinating to watch.
This is the single biggest problem I have with ID proponents: They close off questions about their theory.
Teilhard was one of those present at the discovery of the famous Piltown fraud. Oddly enough, even when it was being touted as a great discovery, Teilhard never mentioned it in his own writings. One wonders...
The author is Senior Lecturer in the Philosophy Department
I would guess his stock in trade involves a touch of extraneous blather. Perhaps he gets paid by the word.
>>what it is on to has no connection and does no meaningful work in biology (or physics).
Really? No connection? Science tries to answer the "why" and "how" questions about things... Why and how things happen is not disconnected or unmeaningful -- no more than the theory of evolution is...
Why and how is very fundamental biological question, why and how there is life. The theory of evolution is just one explanation of the how and why. "Intelligent Design" is just one more explanation..
>>However, and more significantly, ID is dumb philosophy.
I agree that there are many philisophical overtones in what is known as "Intelligent design" and that a great phrase has been coopted by evangelical fundamentalists in anachronistic attempts to explain the orgin of all life. This is a most unfortunate event, since the phrase is very meaningful appliciable to biology.
I commend you for incorporating computer games into this discussion. Maybe now we'll get something done.
And I'm not being sarcastic.
Well, I think he did a reasonable job of writing an essay that only required one word: "Dumb."
Let's face it squarely. ID says nothing except that the universe was invented.
Proof? None. Evidence? none.
What's to argue? Either it was or it wasn't. Who the hell knows? Can science provide the answer? No. Does science pretend to provide the answer? No.
Does ID provide an answer? Yep. The universe was someone's invention. End of debate (and intellectual inquiry.)
As much as I believe in an Intelligent designer, there are no real theories that are provable.
But, on the other hand, ID isn't disproved either, other than stated above.
ID doesn't have to be "disproved."
The burden falls on its proponents to show that it is a legitimate theory and should be considered such. They have failed to do so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.