Certainly a basic aspect, that intelligent design is not itself a scientific theory or even hypothesis, is correct.
But at same time, I see the new course as being designed to teach a specific brand of politics, and I've seen far too many of those in recent years.
Although I've spent a great deal of effort battling creationism -- as you know, it's a substantial part of my writings -- I would actually oppose this. Let's explain good science and why Intelligent Design isn't -- not merely attack people of faith for having "mythologies".
Except that, as a person of faith, I'm able to see that an internally-consistent belief system is, in point of fact, a mythology. I don't have a problem with people pointing at Christianity, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Buddhism, Wicca, or any other religion and labeling it "mythology."
The danger, of course, is that science meets most of the criteria for being a mythology, and we can't have SCIENCE labeled that way.
There are multiple avenues in the pursuit of truth. Science is one of them, and it works well for helping us live longer. Religion -- especially "revealed" religion -- is another, and it works well for telling us HOW to live.
The debate over I.D. vs. Evolution is, in my mind, a debate over whether science should be used exclusively in the pursuit of morality. We should not be teaching people that science is the be-all, end-all "way of knowing." But we do not have to discredit it in order to do that.
The debate over I.D. vs. Evolution is, in my mind, a debate over whether science should be used exclusively in the pursuit of morality.
I certainly don't see this. It seems to me that pointing out that ID is not science is perceived as an attack on religion's moral authority -- but this perception is wrong.
The problem I have with the "course" outlined is that it seems to be staged as an attack on religions. The discussion of evolution should NOT be involved there.
Science says nothing about morals and good and evil. It cannot. It can supply data and hypotheses that might help make informed decisions, and that's a large contribution -- but is not The Truth.
Oddly, from the creationists' standpoint, ID is "politically charged". From the scientists' stanpoint, global warming is instead. Scientists don't have to "spin" evolution; the evidence is overwhelming. But to show global warming as a "catastrophe", politics and spin loom large, much as creationists are doing with ID.
Science has no meaningful similarities with mythology, in my opinion. Science is testable, and tested, and bad hypotheses get fixed (eventually). Sometimes this requires patience, though. ]:-/
As a Christian, I probably have a very peculiar view on all of this. First of all, I happen to think that the theory of evolution should be taught, because that's what we have to work with. And if evolution is not true - well, no one who believes otherwise is going to be able to make a very intelligent argument against it, if he doesn't even understand the theory of evolution, and what supports or seems to support it.
What I have a problem with is when the teacher of evolution then uses his position as a soapbox to deride anyone who dares hold to Christian beliefs. (I remember an environment very hostile to my beliefs, politics and brand of morality when I was in high school and college, and I don't imagine that it's gotten any better since then.) This class sounds an awful lot like that sort of thing.
I could go on more with this topic, but I should probably skip essay-length comments, and just make a journal entry of my own if I'm so inspired. ;)
There's too much evidence for the Theory of Evolution for it to turn out to be "not true". There can be new wrinkles -- such as recent work into certain plants seeming to store some cross-generation heredity in RNA instead of DNA. That's weird, but if that's how it works on those rare occasions we'll deal with it, and add to our understanding.
I, too, dislike the "soapbox" effect. It seems to derive from people who think their knowledge in one speciatily extends to a general authority on everything. They've got no business attacking people of faith, and many scientists arequite religious.
When a scientist says "God doesn't exist," he's engaging in philosophy, and cannot prove any such assertion. The most he can offer is word games, and he's in trouble. I say this as an atheist and acceptor of this philosophy; I know I cannot prove it or test the assertion.
And religious people get in similar trouble when they make assertions about the real world, such as its history -- precisely because those assertions CAN be tested.
Let's just teach science and get clear of the attacks. A hostile environment doesn't advance any good cause.
I think to most people, the battle looks very strange, partly because the lines are so poorly drawn.
When I was in high school, an elective biology course I was taking -- "Contemporary Issues and Biology" -- covered intelligent design to a small degree. It was presented as "an intelligent being designed the laws by which the universe operates and things went on their own from there". No real effort made to say that the theory of evolution or abiogenesis or whathaveyou aren't accurate. It was a view that could neither be proved or disproved, and you could or not believe it without any harm to your understanding of the physical universe.
And I thought "Why is this such a big deal? It seems reasonable to me if people want to believe it."
But what makes it a big deal to scientists is when proponents of other variations -- all of which are also called "Intelligent Design" and all of which espouse different ideas, incidentally -- start making claims that do contradict the available evidence of the physical universe. When people say "the flagellum can't have evolved" and there's clear evidence that it did, or that "eyes are too complex to evolve" when there are several varieties of eyes and all evidence indicates they all evolved separately -- scientists are naturally upset, because those claims don't make sense. And because these are claims about subtle and complex issues, it's often difficult for people who understand all the available evidence to present the truth in a way that's more convincing than a rhetorical "appeal to logic".
And on the other side, there are scientists who use their science as a soapbox to spew against religion, as evidence for evolution was somehow evidence against G-d. Which naturally annoys people of faith and does nothing for the teaching of science as a whole.
Incidentally, the claims that "everything else evolved but not this little widget, which is clear proof of intelligent design because it couldn't happen 'by accident'" offend me on a religious level. Like, what, G-d's not good enough to make everything operate by apparent chance, and so He has to show His signature here? And what does it say about faith if I have to "prove" that there's an intelligent designer using flagellums?
Anyway, this is all too wordy. Summation:
Science does not disprove the existance of the Divine. Nor does it prove its existance. I will be much happier if people avoid trying to do either one 'cause it's not gonna work. K thx.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 06:46 am (UTC)Certainly a basic aspect, that intelligent design is not itself a scientific theory or even hypothesis, is correct.
But at same time, I see the new course as being designed to teach a specific brand of politics, and I've seen far too many of those in recent years.
Although I've spent a great deal of effort battling creationism -- as you know, it's a substantial part of my writings -- I would actually oppose this. Let's explain good science and why Intelligent Design isn't -- not merely attack people of faith for having "mythologies".
Best wishes.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 07:23 am (UTC)The danger, of course, is that science meets most of the criteria for being a mythology, and we can't have SCIENCE labeled that way.
There are multiple avenues in the pursuit of truth. Science is one of them, and it works well for helping us live longer. Religion -- especially "revealed" religion -- is another, and it works well for telling us HOW to live.
The debate over I.D. vs. Evolution is, in my mind, a debate over whether science should be used exclusively in the pursuit of morality. We should not be teaching people that science is the be-all, end-all "way of knowing." But we do not have to discredit it in order to do that.
--Howard
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 08:14 am (UTC)I certainly don't see this. It seems to me that pointing out that ID is not science is perceived as an attack on religion's moral authority -- but this perception is wrong.
The problem I have with the "course" outlined is that it seems to be staged as an attack on religions. The discussion of evolution should NOT be involved there.
Science says nothing about morals and good and evil. It cannot. It can supply data and hypotheses that might help make informed decisions, and that's a large contribution -- but is not The Truth.
Oddly, from the creationists' standpoint, ID is "politically charged". From the scientists' stanpoint, global warming is instead. Scientists don't have to "spin" evolution; the evidence is overwhelming. But to show global warming as a "catastrophe", politics and spin loom large, much as creationists are doing with ID.
Science has no meaningful similarities with mythology, in my opinion. Science is testable, and tested, and bad hypotheses get fixed (eventually). Sometimes this requires patience, though. ]:-/
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 02:37 pm (UTC)What I have a problem with is when the teacher of evolution then uses his position as a soapbox to deride anyone who dares hold to Christian beliefs. (I remember an environment very hostile to my beliefs, politics and brand of morality when I was in high school and college, and I don't imagine that it's gotten any better since then.) This class sounds an awful lot like that sort of thing.
I could go on more with this topic, but I should probably skip essay-length comments, and just make a journal entry of my own if I'm so inspired. ;)
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 07:24 pm (UTC)I, too, dislike the "soapbox" effect. It seems to derive from people who think their knowledge in one speciatily extends to a general authority on everything. They've got no business attacking people of faith, and many scientists arequite religious.
When a scientist says "God doesn't exist," he's engaging in philosophy, and cannot prove any such assertion. The most he can offer is word games, and he's in trouble. I say this as an atheist and acceptor of this philosophy; I know I cannot prove it or test the assertion.
And religious people get in similar trouble when they make assertions about the real world, such as its history -- precisely because those assertions CAN be tested.
Let's just teach science and get clear of the attacks. A hostile environment doesn't advance any good cause.
===|==============/ Level Head
no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 08:35 pm (UTC)When I was in high school, an elective biology course I was taking -- "Contemporary Issues and Biology" -- covered intelligent design to a small degree. It was presented as "an intelligent being designed the laws by which the universe operates and things went on their own from there". No real effort made to say that the theory of evolution or abiogenesis or whathaveyou aren't accurate. It was a view that could neither be proved or disproved, and you could or not believe it without any harm to your understanding of the physical universe.
And I thought "Why is this such a big deal? It seems reasonable to me if people want to believe it."
But what makes it a big deal to scientists is when proponents of other variations -- all of which are also called "Intelligent Design" and all of which espouse different ideas, incidentally -- start making claims that do contradict the available evidence of the physical universe. When people say "the flagellum can't have evolved" and there's clear evidence that it did, or that "eyes are too complex to evolve" when there are several varieties of eyes and all evidence indicates they all evolved separately -- scientists are naturally upset, because those claims don't make sense. And because these are claims about subtle and complex issues, it's often difficult for people who understand all the available evidence to present the truth in a way that's more convincing than a rhetorical "appeal to logic".
And on the other side, there are scientists who use their science as a soapbox to spew against religion, as evidence for evolution was somehow evidence against G-d. Which naturally annoys people of faith and does nothing for the teaching of science as a whole.
Incidentally, the claims that "everything else evolved but not this little widget, which is clear proof of intelligent design because it couldn't happen 'by accident'" offend me on a religious level. Like, what, G-d's not good enough to make everything operate by apparent chance, and so He has to show His signature here? And what does it say about faith if I have to "prove" that there's an intelligent designer using flagellums?
Anyway, this is all too wordy. Summation:
Science does not disprove the existance of the Divine. Nor does it prove its existance. I will be much happier if people avoid trying to do either one 'cause it's not gonna work. K thx.