Skip to comments.Why scientists dismiss 'intelligent design' - It would ‘become the death of science’
Posted on 09/28/2005 6:31:31 AM PDT by gobucks
(snip) But in order to attract converts and win over critics, a new scientific theory must be enticing. It must offer something that its competitors lack. That something may be simplicity (snip). Or it could be sheer explanatory power, which was what allowed evolution to become a widely accepted theory with no serious detractors among reputable scientists.
So what does ID offer? What can it explain that evolution can't?
(snip) Irreducible Complexity (snip)
Darwin himself admitted that if an example of irreducible complexity were ever found, his theory of natural selection would crumble.
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down," Darwin wrote.
Yet no true examples of irreducible complexity have ever been found. The concept is rejected by the majority of the scientific community. (snip)
A necessary and often unstated flipside to this is that if an irreducibly complex system contains within it a smaller set of parts that could be used for some other function, then the system was never really irreducibly complex to begin with.
It's like saying in physics that atoms are the fundamental building blocks of matter only to discover, as physicists have, that atoms are themselves made up of even smaller and more fundamental components.
This flipside makes the concept of irreducible complexity testable, giving it a scientific virtue that other aspects of ID lack.
"The logic of their argument is you have these multipart systems, and that the parts within them are useless on their own," said Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Rhode Island. "The instant that I or anybody else finds a subset of parts that has a function, that argument is destroyed."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
But if this article is an example of how the MSM is going to fight against I.D., then it is NO WONDER I.D. has been making the inroads it has.
The hysteria about "the death of science" and "ruin the schools" (what's this we've got now?) ... as if no one will ever do a chemistry experiment or a physics experiment again ... makes it clear that the basis of the controversy is religion.
I.D. is not science, as it can't be tested.
It's a 'faith' that something created this process.
It shouldn't be taught in school alongside science.
Bring on the inquistors and expose the heretics, dark ages here we come.
So hit the proverbial nail on the head.
Like finding a Rolex in an area of the earth that has never been visited by humans. Or found on Mars?
The reason they say this is because of the "Earth is 6K Years Old" types out there who see scientific facts in front of their eyes(the light we see today from the Andromeda Galaxy has taken 2.3 million years to get here) and just poo-poo this fact as meaningless. THAT is the concern. When scientific facts become meaningless then science IS irrelavant. Talk to some of the 6K'ers and you would realize that this is a legit concern.
Doesn't really matter where it is taught - most people don't believe in evolution and never will.
Very interesting. I want to hear more about this Rolex found in an area of the earth never visited by humans. Do tell!
Yes - it will be the end of the world as we know it if students are told creation MAY be the result of an "intelligent designer". Pull your kids out of public schools now! They will never be able to survive in the real world if they don't believe in evolution.
"It shouldn't be taught in school alongside science."
This presumes science has proved, emperically, that someone can actually 'know' something. I'm sorry, but that proof doesn't exist.
Which means that science is itself is based upon a simple faith statement: we have to believe that when scientists say something is true, we know it is true.
Your words are perfect by the way: "It's a faith...".
The above is not science. It is the religion of science.
Even if bacteria can evolve a gene to digest nylon, that does not disprove intelligent design. Such a capability is an intelligent design, but scientists have no idea that such a gene evolved. They admit they just "prefer" that explanation. It seems to me that ID is the "why" behind everything that scientists usually say is none of their business.
"...makes it clear that the basis of the controversy is religion".
But the trustworthy scientists keep telling us that science is 'value - neutral', and that there is nothing religious about what they are up to. They keep saying "trust us". Sort of like the Doctors at St. Vincents, who told the liver transplant patients ...'trust us to be fair about the waiting list'. And then we find out the Saudi man with his new liver, and his lots of money can corrupt Doctors too..
Oh wait: bio - scientists ... the PhD types .. they are not suseptible to such temptations about money. And fame...
I keep forgetting that tidbit.
"We don' need no steenkin' 3-R's!"
After I finished reading the article, I totally shared your reaction ... esp about the nylon part.
The fact that the I.D. efforts (assuming that it is pure nonsense, which I don't) can provoke this kind of inanity at the very minimum indicates just how weak the position of Darwinism is...
That's what I think. Why do they get themselves so worked up about ID if evolution has been proved over and over and over...
It goes without saying that scientists are smarter, more honest, and more rational than the rest of us. Didn't you get the memo where it told us that we weren't allowed to question this?
For example, we're not allowed to ask why a person with a Ph.D. in, for example, "Theory of Combustion" or "Polymer Engineering," should know anything more about the origins of life than any literate human being. He's a Scientist, you know!
dark ages? given the insanity of abortion, the fantastic stupidity of gay marriage, the unreal reactions regarding Christ himself ...
and especially the howls of outrage against Paul...
....well, did we ever leave the dark ages?
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.