Friday, August 26, 2005

Intelligent Design

Well, thank God someone of major importance in science has come to straighten out all us dumb, naive, heretical evolutionists:

Pat Boone. The same man who was roundly reviled by the religious rabble when he donned a dog collar. I wasn't against the epithets heaped on him - watching Pat Boone try to be metal is like watching the old folks at the nursing home throw they hands in the air to Nelly. I wonder if he's trying to get back into their graces.

He says, “The idea that all of this could have happened mindlessly with no blueprint is sheer stupidity and very unscientific.” As compared to ID, whose "scientific" answer is, "God did it!" Pop quiz, gentle readers: A tenet of science is that its claims are ___________

b.)secret codes for buried treasure
d.)having the full requirement of vitamins B and D.

Pop Quiz 2: "God did it!" as a scientific claim is _________

a.)not testable
b.)not testable
c.)REALLY not testable
d.)No, Like, REALLLY not testable

The Skeptical Dictionary sends out e-mails, which I recommend, and here is their portion dealing with Intelligent Design:

So, the question must be asked: Should we teach ID in our biology classrooms even though ID is not a viable alternative to natural selection? The answer is "yes, if we teach ID properly." The answer is "no" if we are asked to teach ID as a viable scientific theory worth spending precious classroom time on. To teach ID properly would be to demonstrate to the students that nothing of scientific interest follows after one posits an external agent to explain something. To say the eye was designed by God or an alien race is to say: Stop, go no further in trying to understand this. Students might be taught that ID is just the kind of theory that some philosophers and theologians find interesting but since it doesn't lead to any deeper understanding of biological mechanisms, doesn't lead to new discoveries or research ventures, and doesn't have any practical scientific applications, it is left to those in other fields to pursue. A good biology teacher ought to be able to explain why ID, even if true, is of little scientific interest in about 15 or 20 minutes. That should leave plenty of time for them to instruct their students in science.

It's an excellent point - one you say "God did it", you can't go anywhere else with it. And you have no need to either.

Faith is one thing. Science is another. The twain have differing areas and should not overlap - however, it seems like many people want religion to overrun, not overlap.

I can't even begin to comment on Boone's using the Declaration of Independence as evidence of ID, except to wonder if that previously mentioned dog collar was too tight:

He cited America's founding documents, quoting the Declaration of Independence as he stressed, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator ... ."
"That's how opposed to God Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that, was. Yet he is credited with trying to keep all mention of God out of public life. I wish Jefferson could be back here today just for 30 minutes to set things straight."

What that has to do with evolution, I dunno. I mean, if God is real, couldn't He have come up with evolution, or do Boone, Colson, Frist, Bush, and all the other ones feel He's omnipotent...but evolution is just not something He can do?

The Moderate Voice also deals with Boone's bumblings and his comments about Cindy Sheehan...funny, I thought right wingers hated it when musicians and movie stars made comments about politics. Must be misremembering. Brendan Nyhan has good comments about ID as well.

No comments: