June 02, 2005

Intelligent Design?

from - Buck

“students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.”
Okay. You guys are going to have to enlighten me. Exactly how many different theories of evolution exist? And is there a problem with pointing out weak links in a theoretical chain? I am steadfastly against throwing the baby out with the bathwater but if the bathwater needs changing by all means, throw it out. This is always in the baby’s best interest.

While reading “Master Planned” in the New Yorker I was reminded of the story Ben Franklin told in his "Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America"

According to the accounts,

Franklin described a Swedish minister who lectured a group of Susquehanah Indians on the story of the creation, including "the Fall of our first parents from eating an Apple, the coming of Christ to repair the Mischief, his Miracles and Suffering &c." The Indians replied that it was, indeed, bad to eat apples, when they could have been made into cider. They then repaid the missionary's storytelling favor by telling him their own creation story. The missionary was aghast at this comparison of Christianity with what he regarded as heathenism and, according to Franklin, replied: "What I delivered to you are Sacred Truths, but what you tell me is mere Fable, Fiction and Falsehood." The Indians, in turn, told the missionary that he was lacking in manners.

I get the feeling that I am not rightly separating creation and evolution. But since I see creation as a dynamic and not a static process I have never had any real trouble incorporating evolution into my own personal creation myth.

Intelligent Design may be “junk science” but I have heard scientists say the same about global warming.

What’s a man to believe?


Posted by Buck at June 2, 2005 09:03 AM

Here's my take:
Creation is a broad term encompassing any of a number of religious views about origins.
Evolution (and cosmology) are broad terms encompassing any number of scientific theories that explain how the world and life in it came to be the way that it is today.
Because there is some disagreement between some religious views and some scientific explanations for the same phenomena, and because many religious people feel slighted that science doesn't endorse their view, creationism (YEC, OEC, and Intelligent Design) is a pseudoscientific attack on evolution and cosmology.

My views are further that:
1) Religious and pseudoscientific views have no place in a science classroom, especially at a non-sectarian public school
2) Creationism is a dishonest and destructive way of thinking
3) People can and should honestly and carefully use science, religion, or both to inform their own, personal views of the origins of the world and life in it.

univar.jpg Posted by smijer on June 2, 2005 11:38 AM
Link to comment

Fundementalists are becoming dangerous. We need to take a stand together and make public ridicule and harrassment our general policy. Or else be sensitive to their beliefs but make damn sure that they are not given positions of authority.

THe time for discussion is over.

univar.jpg Posted by bruce on June 10, 2005 05:29 PM
Link to comment

How is simple matter of faith science? Asking someone to believe in a theory that has only a book written by man, which is translated from Aramaic (doesn't translate well into English) as the only source is not science.

Sounds more like a philosophy class, not science. I trust the mounds of data that has been compiled which supports evolution.

univar.jpg Posted by Ricky Bones on June 20, 2005 09:16 AM
Link to comment
Comments for this entry are closed. Please leave your notes on a more recent comment thread.