> -----Original Message----- > From: Nick McClure [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:18 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Bush wants religion taught in the science classroom > > How do you debunk something that is not provable. ID relies on faith. > Science cannot disprove it.
Which is exactly why it should not be taught in science class. ;^) But let's be clear: ID does not rely on faith. It's been adopted and promoted by those of faith, but the hypothesis doesn't require it. At its heart ID is the proposal that certain aspects of the natural world are so perfect, so well formed, so complex that they couldn't be arise via non-intelligent, random means. The classic example is that you're walking through the woods surrounded by nature and you come across an automobile. It should be clear that the automobile is not "natural": somebody (or something) made it. Thought it up and constructed it. ID claims that this same sort of reasoning can be applied to biology and other natural sciences. Another aspect of ID is the "made to order" hypotheses. In this way of thinking aspects of the natural world are pointed to as being just too perfect for our use to be coincidence. Our atmosphere is thick enough to support us and protect us from solar radiation but clear enough to see through. Beyond chance the Earth is exactly the "right" temperature for us. We have enough of everything and so forth: in short things are so "good" for us that that they must have been planned that way. Another aspect is the concept of "irreducible complexity". This occurs, so say the IDers, when a natural construct is so complex as to be useless in any part or any half-step. The human eye is the most common example. IDers ask "since a partial eye is useless how could it have evolved to it's current level of sophistication?" None of the basic tenets of ID require faith. Of course the real issue is none of them actually require intelligence either. Scientists are all but certain that even the most complex natural structures and behaviors could evolve in the vast time span given. Remember also that natural evolution is far from random: it follows the natural laws of chemistry and physics and so forth. The primordial stuff of our planet is more likely than not to combine in the direction of life. And that life is more likely than not to evolve in the direction of improvement. The Earth seems so friendly to us, so "made to order" because we evolved here to thrive in this exact environment. To say the fact that we "fit" so well here is anything more than natural is just muddling cause and effect. Irreducible Complexity falls apart easily when challenged (there are, for example dozens of examples in currently living creatures of "partial" eyes that all provide a benefit to the creatures that have them and could easily be seen as evolutionary steps to our kind of eye). The basic scientific concepts of ID are actually quite interesting and worth thinking about. They just don't hold up under study and comparison. Occam's Razor at work. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how to get a fax number that sends and receives faxes using your current email address http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=64 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:167766 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
