FBR: Intelligent Design
Google evolution and ID, and you'll get the scientific in's and out's. Here's a reputable article: http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html.
The differences between ID and Young Earth Creationism is the difference between the ridiculous and the sublime. ID's basic assertion: biological life is too complex to not have a designer; complex systems cannot occur randomly. Logically, ID argues from a lack of information. There is no satisfactory answer for the question of complexity, therefore there must be a creator. At best this is deductive reasoning, at worst, it's a fallacy (either a slothful induction or a switch on who has the burden of proof).
Even if we accept the deductive reasoning of ID (as most people living in the Middle Ages certainly would have), it fails as science, which has a few basic rules, including: 1) knowledge comes through induction; data originating from the 5 senses must lead to conclusions 2) these conclusions must be arrived at through the scientific method 3) conclusions must be verifiable, or as philosopher Karl Popper said, must be "falsifiable."
If ID bases it's conclusions on deduction, reasoning from the general to the specific, it's not scientific. If it doesn't use the scientific method, to draw it's conclusions, it's not scientific. If you can't prove or disprove the conclusions, it's not scientific. So why teach it in high school biology?
How is ID another form of FBR? It rejects evolution, which albeit a theory, is scientifically--not to mention objectively--based. As stealth creationists, IDers want to reject the objective world here and replace it with a creator, who isn't necessarily God, but looks a lot like him and, if you think about it, made a few mistakes (the appendix, anyone?)
I'm not arguing against the existence of God, spiritual experience, or metaphysical reality. It's this fundamentalist idea that we have to confuse Him with science that is bogus, faith-based reality. Karen Armstrong, one of my favorite writers, explains the history of fundamentalism in The Battle for God. Pre-modern peoples never had the problem, according to Armstrong, of confusing the rational, scientific (logos) with the spiritual and arational (mythos).
Mb
The differences between ID and Young Earth Creationism is the difference between the ridiculous and the sublime. ID's basic assertion: biological life is too complex to not have a designer; complex systems cannot occur randomly. Logically, ID argues from a lack of information. There is no satisfactory answer for the question of complexity, therefore there must be a creator. At best this is deductive reasoning, at worst, it's a fallacy (either a slothful induction or a switch on who has the burden of proof).
Even if we accept the deductive reasoning of ID (as most people living in the Middle Ages certainly would have), it fails as science, which has a few basic rules, including: 1) knowledge comes through induction; data originating from the 5 senses must lead to conclusions 2) these conclusions must be arrived at through the scientific method 3) conclusions must be verifiable, or as philosopher Karl Popper said, must be "falsifiable."
If ID bases it's conclusions on deduction, reasoning from the general to the specific, it's not scientific. If it doesn't use the scientific method, to draw it's conclusions, it's not scientific. If you can't prove or disprove the conclusions, it's not scientific. So why teach it in high school biology?
How is ID another form of FBR? It rejects evolution, which albeit a theory, is scientifically--not to mention objectively--based. As stealth creationists, IDers want to reject the objective world here and replace it with a creator, who isn't necessarily God, but looks a lot like him and, if you think about it, made a few mistakes (the appendix, anyone?)
I'm not arguing against the existence of God, spiritual experience, or metaphysical reality. It's this fundamentalist idea that we have to confuse Him with science that is bogus, faith-based reality. Karen Armstrong, one of my favorite writers, explains the history of fundamentalism in The Battle for God. Pre-modern peoples never had the problem, according to Armstrong, of confusing the rational, scientific (logos) with the spiritual and arational (mythos).
Mb
posted by Diana I. Bail at 8/29/2005 04:28:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home