Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Intelligence Design

Both the Commissar of Politburo Diktat and Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House have made expressed their dismay at The President endorsing the idea that Intelligence Design should be taught along side Evolution in Science class.

Beside the excellent points made by others I have a few points of my own – the points are made for those on the Right who endorse it.

(1) This is the scientific equivalence of moral relativism that we on the Right criticize moonbats for. Since when did Conservative buy in the idea that all ideas are equal? The argument of the proponents of ID is that it is a competition of idea. If that is the case, how would they like it if Communism or Fascism is being taught to their children in government or economic class? I know that I just gave extreme examples. But I doubt those who advocate ID would even want their children to learn the Gaia theory that many of those left wing new age loonies believe. And are they ready to learn the theory of that I personally subscribe to, soul migration which also known as reincarnation?

(2) Those of us that oppose Intelligence Design in Science class are not opposing to the potential soundness of ID. It can be taught as a metaphysic theory in Philosophy class. It has validity within that department along with the other theories that Plato and Aristotle articulated. That is where it rightly belongs, as well as my subscribed theory of reincarnation, not in Science class. ID is not science since it cannot be falsified in the same manner scientific theory can.
UPDATE: I am having second thought.

There will be those who will accuse me of not understanding intelligence design. I understand it. I understand that it does not invalidate the theory of evolution. It merely explains that evolution is not random; rather there is an author behind the process. It is actually a justification for a person who believes in a creator to accept evolution theory by wrapping evolution around a theological concept. If I understand it incorrectly, please feel free to correct me.

Why am I having second thought? I am still not subscribing to ID nor do I believe that it belongs in the realm of science. But if intelligence design gets skeptical people (particularly religious parents) to accept evolution – and there are many of them – the utilitarian in me say that it is an acceptable trade off.

2 Comments:

Anonymous tommy said...

there is a better than average discussion of this here:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/on_intelligent_design_and_the_public_school_curriculum/

I pretty much agree with that post's author about this, whether or not it is appropriate depends on the context of how it is taught. Bush's comments do not address that really and I suspect he probably didn't intend to address it either.

Via MaxedOutMama, I've been dropping in off and on for a while.

8:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I admire your open mindedness in taking a second look at the issue. However, I think your self described "utilitarian" approach wouldn't work.

As the comment threads at websites that have discussed this issue show - especially my own - this issue brings out the worst in many people. A dogmatic mindset among ID'ers who desperately seek to validate their thinking by pointing out holes in evolutionary theory proves that the kind of discussion you wish to initiate wouldn't be possible. People that married to a set of beliefs only want validation, not exploration.

However noble your attempt to bridge the divide, I think it ultimately will prove a non starter.

Rick Moran
BTW - missed you at the Carnival this past week!

3:54 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home