Replies

For the local perspective from the Prague Post...

Faith requires no rewriting of science

Postview

October 19, 2005
To Europeans, and to a predominantly agnostic nation like the Czech Republic, the American fascination with religious conservatism might seem a bit of a mystery — and the truth is, it's a bit of a mystery to many Americans as well. But what is generally not a mystery is the underlying difference between science and religion, between questions of fact and questions of faith.

But that distinction has grown alarmingly ambiguous to some, to the point that a few public school districts in the United States are already considering incorporating theological pseudoscience into their educational curricula.
The latest sheep's clothing for this movement has taken the name Intelligent Design, a phrase that would seem more comfortable on an Ikea catalog than a course catalog. In what appears to be an effort at a kinder, gentler counterpoint to the Scopes monkey trial, followers of this doctrine speculate that since Darwin's theory of natural selection lacks the ease of proof of, say, mathematics or basic chemistry, any other notion on evolution must be treated as equally legitimate science — such as the belief that the ascent of man has been traced through time by the finger of God.

Advocates of this belief have even sought to export it to Europe and elsewhere, and Intelligent Design acolytes will hold a conference here in Prague Oct. 22 to spread faith in their new word.
Many respected scientists have no quarrel with the notion that superior intelligence created the universe as a religious doctrine, nor can there be any objection to a conference that scrutinizes the merits of the concept as a science. After all, it's through open academic debate that bad ideas are dismantled and good ideas reinforced.

And, at the end of the day, most people have no serious expectation that Intelligent Design will seize the imagination of the scientific world and force Darwinism to share shoulder-space with it. More likely, in a few years, Intelligent Design will be little more than a curious historical detour on the road to knowledge, like a giant ball of twine on a long highway's roadside, interesting only for its oddity.

But it is surprising in this day and age that some religious theorists continue to feel compelled to impose theological concepts on the scientific world — a practice just as preposterous as if physics tried to explain the difference between good and evil or the meaning of life. And in a way, needing to cloak a religious doctrine with the veneer of science is almost an admission of its defect — true faith doesn't require scientific proof, since the definition of faith is to have belief in the absence of proof.

Ultimately, then, perhaps it's appropriate for the Intelligent Design conference to take place in Prague, the final resting place of astronomer Tycho Brahe, eternally ensconced in the Ty´n Church on Old Town Square. Brahe spent years trying to force a mathematical model of the universe into harmony with the theological teachings of the Catholic Church, to no avail. Galileo and Copernicus found their scientific discoveries equally at odds with religious teachings — which at times put them in peril. Perhaps, as Intelligent Design advocates visit Europe to spread their teachings, they can look to religion's own history and learn something as well.

...a few public school districts in the United States are already considering incorporating theological pseudoscience into their educational curricula.

The present bias toward self creation in the science community is unfounded arrogance. They ask of science questions that it is not capable of answering. Science cannot explain or answer any and all dimensions of a question.

The origin of life is a question that involves more than hard science to answer.

Using the phrase "theological pseudoscience" to demean those searching for answers to the shortcomings of Darwin's basic change over time ideas, is simply wrong.

ID attempts to involve as possible answers, aspects of mystery which posit that intelligence gives birth to intelligence.
Is that so odd?

Otherwise....you believe in spontaneous generation.