> -----Original Message----- > From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 9:47 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Bush wants religion taught in the science classroom > > > For those that have never actually read about this stuff > > CSICOP has a very > > good critique of ID here: > > > http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/design.html > > > Obviously it's critical, but it covers much of the more > > pragmatic material > > (it leaves out the biblical literalists for example) and > > offers a nice > > historical overview. > > > Jim Davis > > It's a good writeup... It's unfortunate that people seem to be either > well versed in the science and poorly educated in the philosophy or > well versed in religion (not philosophy) and poorly versed in the > science. It might be nice to a writeup of such a thing from someone > well versed in both science and philosophy. This particular writeup is > lacking in the philosophy department.
Well I would argue that it's not needed. ID proponent's whole argument is that ID is a science. "Pure science", not religion, not philosophy. Either defense or criticism of it should then be purely scientific, don't you think? There is definitely the social aspect of ID, the religious under- (and over-) tones and such that could make for many interesting philosophical articles and discussions: but to critique ID you must do it on the terms laid out. > Although I'm not going to dispute his conclusions, I will point out > two things he missed: Honestly your issues are with the part of the article I personally didn't like much. ;^) The idea he tried to present was interesting, but he presented to quickly, with too little detail and with too many absolute statements. I'mnot sure if it was just the limited space of the magazine or what but that whole last section just kind of (for me) meandered on without saying all that much. Although the first point -- tool-using in animals -- has been hotly debated for years. How much of it is "design" and how much is instinct? It's been proven in several cases that some behaviors must be taught or they don't appear and others appear regardless of teaching. Does an ape "Design" his termite twig? Is there intelligence, or (to be a little dramatic) an elegance to a Sea Otter's selection of clam-cracker? Certain behaviors (some pretty complex) are specific to certain families of dolphins or chimps but are unseen in others. All told it's a really fascinating subject. ;^) Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:167768 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
