Replies

Why are you folks so threatened by a discussion of the possibility of intelligent design?

You know I have wondered that myself. What does it hurt that people believe in ID? I am not offended by people who believe in evolution. That is their right to believe what they want. But evolutions get so upset when ID is even mentioned. They can't have a logical discussion because they think that a belief in ID takes their intellect into question. For ID believers to put ID against their intellect, well, whoa, can't be going there. They always have to have a human answer to situations, as if they are the ones with the only plausible answers. Something gets labeled as "scientific" and to them that is the end of the story. Questioning it otherwise would lead to knowledge from a higher source (scary to them) and to them they are the only source.

"What does it hurt that people believe in ID?"

I don't have a problem with someone believing in ID. I don't even have a problem with someone who believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old. I do have a major problem when someone wants to push their beliefs on other peoples' children in a public school science class. Science class is for science; not religious beliefs.

"They can't have a logical discussion because they think that a belief in ID takes their intellect into question."

It's less about that than it is about the type of discussion each side wants to have. IDers want others to believe without seeing via argument of negation ("it can't be that way!"), whereas ToEers want others to understand and accept observable phenomenon via evidentiary argument ("it's this way because A, B, and C, then D, then E, and finally, F!"). The two sides aren't even having the same argument at times.

"They always have to have a human answer to situations, as if they are the ones with the only plausible answers."

Actually, the life of a scientist is one of perpetual self-doubt. When you come up with a hypothesis to explain something, you're supposed to do everything you can to prove that you're wrong. Then, if you can't prove you're wrong, you're supposed to have all the people whose respect you seek attempt to prove you wrong. If anyone succeeds, you were wrong from the get-go. If your hypothesis stands up to the test of peer review, then you finally get a little bit of self confidence that you might actually be close to something. Not exactly the exciting thing some would like.

"Something gets labeled as "scientific" and to them that is the end of the story."

That's just the beginning. Peer review is long and brutal. It is, however, highly effective at destroying wrong answers.

"Questioning it otherwise would lead to knowledge from a higher source (scary to them) and to them they are the only source."

You can question it all you want, but you need to be prepared to play ball on their level. If you're going to question, you need to be prepared to meet their responses. Thus far, IDers have done nothing more than jump up and down about how science hasn't explained everything yet. That's put forth as evidence that science has no answers. Science has answered the vast majority of the questions that led to the development of the ancient mythologies of man. It continues to march forward in its quest to explain everything in the physical, natural world. Outside that natural world? That's the domain of philosphy and religion. Good science cannot and will not even attempt to cross that line.