Heavy stuff. Isn't it true that the theory of Intelligent Design is a convenient rationalization of those who lost the Scopes trial? Some ideas are stained almost irrevocably by the baggage of those who espouse it.
The fact that Dubya is willing to endorse it for instruction in American schools is enough evidence for me to consign this theory to the dustbin of history. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Jeremiah S. Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Such enthusiasm to see which way the kook crumbles... ;-) > > In response to the attack on my logic, content and verbiage, let me > reword and clarify what I was getting at. > > Only two possibilities exist: either there is an Intelligent Designer or > there isn't. > > Proponents of ID offer their observations from nature, that in their > opinion appear to bear the hallmarks of intelligent design, and from > this they infer an Intelligent Designer. That is the "proof" they offer. > Their opponents don't believe intelligent design can be inferred from > these observations. > > To me, it all hinges on the definition of "design" and the arrival of a > consensus as to what ought to constitute an adequate proof for design. > Obviously this has not been agreed on, and hence the debate. I do not > intend to get into an argument about this. > All I wanted to point out was that ID proponents offer what they > consider proof for their hypothesis - which may or may not be accepted. > > On the other hand, the claim was made that there was no debate or > controversy, implying that the matter had been settled once and for all > - that it had been decided that there was no Intelligent Designer. A > claim like that begs backing. A proof of the non-existence of something > may be a logical fallacy. At the very least it tends towards one, since > an exhaustive proof requires that one search out this and all possible > universes, and declare it empty of an Intelligent Designer! That was > precisely my point. (I guess the satire was lost). While one may not > accept as sufficient evidence the "proofs" of the ID proponents, one > cannot logically rule out the possibility that an Intelligent Designer > exists. (In the same way that one cannot rule out the existence of > hobgoblins, leprechauns, UFOs and things that go bump in the dark). > > What makes something "scientific", and defines the accepted boundaries > of science, falls in the realm of the philosophy of science, and not > science itself, and may or may not be sufficient to describe reality. > Whether you agree with that or not, this is not the first time that > "non-scientific" explanations have been invoked to accommodate observed > facts. Current accepted (peer-reviewed!) theory postulates that our > universe began with a singularity - by definition a point at which all > scientific laws as we know them break down. Sweet. > > As an aside: Asking for peer-reviewed citations over a controversy is > borderline ridiculous. I can provide you with these, but would you > believe them? Articles pass peer-review, by definition, when the > reviewers agree that the observations and interpretations therein are > sound. In this case, neither side believes that of the other, so there. > > Finally, pretty much everyone is familiar with the arguments for > evolution, but as open-minded (or at least curious) individuals, have > you personally assessed at least some of the data allegedly pointing > towards ID? :-) >
