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. ]:-/
![[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 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