Posted on 09/08/2005 1:33:48 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Five critiques of Intelligent Design
John Brockman's Edge.org site has published the following five critiques of Intelligent Design (the bracketed comments following each link are mine):
Marcelo Gleiser, "Who Designed the Designer?" [a brief op-ed piece]
Jerry Coyne, "The Case Against Intelligent Design: The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name" [a detailed critique of ID and its history, together with a summary defense of Darwinism]
Richard Dawkins & Jerry Coyne, "One Side Can Be Wrong" [why 'teaching both sides' is not reasonable when there's really only one side]
Scott Atran, "Unintelligent Design" [intentional causes were banished from science with good reason]
Daniel C. Dennett, "Show Me the Science" [ID is a hoax]
As Marcelo Gleiser suggests in his op-ed piece, the minds of ID extremists will be changed neither by evidence nor by argument, but IDists (as he calls them) aren't the target audience for critiques such as his. Rather, the target audience is the millions of ordinary citizens who may not know enough about empirical science (and evolution science in particular) to understand that IDists are peddling, not science, but rather something tarted up to look like it.
Let us not be deceived.
Yes, but the mathematics of quantum mechanics is inescapable. It is random.
However just because something happens randomly doesn't imply that it is by "accident".
Carbon 13 decays randomly, but at a predictable rate; and not by "accident".
The use of the adjective, "materialistic," begs the question. As taught in our universities, science is the first to acknowlege that the supernatural is out of bounds for empirical investigation. Science does not purport to answer, "why?" questions.
Now, here we are, less than a century later, and the purveyors of this same essential position insist on allowing no alternative explanations for our origins. :) (I know they'll poo poo that, but 'tis true!)
The thing I don't understand is why the monkey people are so hysterical about Intelligent Design. Why is your faith superior to our faith?
"Does this subject belong in a science class though?"
I love the FEAR this causes in some people.
How could a simple book created by man stir up thousands of years of of fear? of Love? of Hate? of Hope?
Do you think there is a human with that kind of capabilities? That power to last through the centuries. What arogance!
Creationism is not a religion - It is the only possible explanation and that explanation only creates more questions - and that causes FEAR in many. Enough FEAR to cause enough HATE to try to destroy the reason for the FEAR.
Evolutionist show that FEAR.
I will agree to one point - "Intelligent Design" is an insult to the REAL Beginning - whatever and however it was.
Nope. Faith is not the same as science. Once a theory claims it is science, then the proof must be there for it to be considered true. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
Yes, I agree we are not acts of random chance.
Only five? Someone's been slacking..
"Do students have a right to hear all the evidence in science class... even if it contradicts evolution?
We say yes."
I say yes as well. Too bad that there isn't a scrap of actual scientific evidence to support ID.
Once there's a competing theory with even the slightest shred of evidence to back it up, students should be told about it. Yes, even if it contradicts evolution.
To say that evolutionists refuse to allow opposing viewpoints to be taught in science class is disingenuous at best. They simply insist that only science be taught in science class - go figure....
We're here to help:
The Theory of Evolution. Excellent introductory encyclopedia article.
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Another good introduction.
The Pocket Darwin. Very good, easily readable summary.
Is Evolution Science? It certainly is. Here's why.
Evolution and the Nature of Science. Excellent discussion.
Evolution as Fact and Theory by Stephen Jay Gould.
Lots more here: The List-O-Links.
For instance, now that Britain has found that its soil is releasing carbon due to global warming, wouldn't it be prudent to question the method of carbon dating? Isn't the "given" that carbon gets released at a steady rate over the millenia now debunked, and that the rate is determined by the warming and cooling cycles of the earth?
I am not a scientist, but I can think through evidence fairly well, and make connections to patterns.
sorry, i meant so say: Yes, I agree we are not mere PRODUCTS of random chance.
Will answer this evening. :-)
I noticed that you ducked Buke's question.
"Does this subject belong in a science class though?"
In the absence of any scientific evidence to support ID, the answer must be "No."
Well that's no longer the case anymore I'm afraid. When did you go to college?
you do know, yes, that the Laws of Gravity got bumped back to theoretical status over 70 years ago?
Did you miss the question marks? I was asking questions, not claiming it debunked it.
No. The part I'm objecting to here is the bit about Schools being an "organ of the government". Any solution that makes schools not an "organ of the government" is to be desired.
But isn't it the case that most schools are run by their local school boards under state supervision?
The feds have heavy involvement, because they fund it heavily. The department of education, created by Jimmah Carter, also has a lot of power over the local schools.
If I had the opportunity to meet the assumed designer, I'd ask what, to me, is the most important question of them all: ''Mr. Designer,
how come you didn't give us a pocket. It would really come in handy. Something big enough for car keys, drivers license, credit card.
I missed nothing. Your final statement ("I am not a scientist, but I can think through evidence fairly well, and make connections to patterns.") renders the question marks to which you refer mere rhetorical devices.
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.