Monday, August 22, 2005

I Hate Intelligent Design

I'm so sick of this.
And the fact that The Times feels compelled to address this non-issue. Bill Maher put it best on Saturday night: you don't have to show both sides of a debate when one side is full of shit.
There are some humorous quotes to be found however. I like Walter Paley: if you see a rock you can tell it was formed by wind and rain, but if you see a pocket watch, it's obviously been designed. What?? Clods.

9 comments:

Austen said...

“optical precision of an eye”

I can’t believe people still say shit like this, considering in the mid-1800s (birth of physiology), everyone realized the eye is hardly precise , and so “intelligent design” was out...

I can't read the whole thing without getting loud; I hope this was mentioned. hehe.

Andreas said...

there is an awesome article in the latest "onion" about "intelligent falling" being an alternative to the "theory of gravity".

Brendan said...

i heart the Onion!

RosemaryRuth said...

My biggest question is, where does the design begin?
Creationists may say that each man is individually designed as an end product(in God's multi-faceted image no less).
Perhaps a more liberal mind would say that the design is that which "got the ball rolling," (some say that God was the spark behind the big bang, and divinity has been carried out since.)
Or is the process itself the design? Is scientific method (that truth upon which I depend, a theory culled from empirical evidence) the design that is intelligent?

I have not read much about ID, because frankly I'm not interested. So if I have incorrect information forgive me.

However, as any good scientist knows, the mark of a good hypothesis is whether or not it can be proven wrong.

Who can prove that there is no intelligence, and no design?

Andreas said...

rose,
there can never be a proof in natural sciences. This is a fundamental misconception. Proofs only exist in abstract sytems like logic or geometry. Nobody can prove that the world exists or that you or I are alive and conscious. There is no proof that HIV causes AIDS or that smoking causes cancer or that things you drop always fall to the ground. In natural sciences there is only evidence.
My understanding is that there is much less evidence for a link between smoking and cancer than there is for evolution. Therefore, it is more likely that cancer is Intelligent Killing by a God than that living creatures have been designed.

Brendan said...

The ID people have a number of "theories". One is that the design was there at the inception of the universe. This is referred to as the Billiard Ball theory, i.e. God got first break and naturally all the balls went in the holes he wanted, cuz he's God.

More nuanced versions paint the designer as a sort of super-mathematician, devising all the complex laws and algorithms that govern natural science. I don't find this idea objectionable, plenty of scientists subscribed to it (Einstein for one). But it is fundamentally a matter of faith, not science.

What scares me is the patently ludicrous idea that ID deserves equal treatment within a science classroom. This idea appears to be gaining steam, what with Killy McGee (aka Prez Bush) supporting it on record.

But it's so obviously apples and oranges. In that Times article the ID-ers rage against science being confined to the material world, but that's precisely the definition of science.

Wow, this got long...

RosemaryRuth said...

It's only creationism in pseudo-science's clothing.

Sorry if I misspoke (mistyped?)but what I meant, Andreas, was that a good hypothesis should be able to be tested. How can this be tested?

There is evidence of the design itself, but where is the evidence of intelligence, or the designer?
How can it even be measured?

A Human Bean said...

Intelligent Design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. As a Chirst-follower, I believe God created the heavens and the earth. I also believe he did this through natural processes that took millions of years. In fact, the theory of evolution is only statistically possible if you allow for a creator. Evolution by itself is mathematically impossible. We have ample evidence of inter-species evolution, but very little evidence of intra-species evolution. This is not to say it did not take place, I believe it did. However, it is to say it is only possible with the help of a creator. It takes a lot more faith to believe creation happen by chance than to believe in a God centered creation.

Brendan said...

"Evolution by itself is mathematically impossible."
Oh?
Please explain this statement.

Your invocation of faith is appropriate: however you interpret evolution within your religious beliefs is fine, but your interpetation shouldn't be forced on others as science.

Science quantifies and interprets the material world. Faith suggests things above and beyond the material world. The two are mutually exclusive, for the purpose of teaching.

You use the term "Christ-follower." There are plenty of people in this country who are not "Christ-followers." What their faiths derive from science will be quite different than yours.

Faith is a matter of personal choice. Science is the study of material data. Only the latter is useful for being taught in biology class.