Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Sigh, a post on intelligent design

That is, if a medieval argument dispelled by Hume and Kant isn't enough. Here is a note from 2002 from the National Center for Science Education.
ID has been called an "argument from ignorance," as it relies upon a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: Lacking a natural explanation, we assume intelligent cause.
UPDATE (Aug. 9, 11:53pm):

This is basically it. But I'm still sighing that we have to do this. From Balkinization:
...Rather than being challenged as inconsistent with biblical teaching, and therefore wrong, the theory of evolution is now being challenged by Intelligent Design advocates--a cleaned up version of creation "science"--as a weak scientific theory (despite piles of empirical support). The attack is on scientific turf, not religious turf, or at least that is the claim by ID folks, although they have little science to offer and candor presumably would compel them to admit that they are motivated by religious reasons.

This raises the question: why has a sensible way to reconcile faith and science that has worked for so long become unacceptable to many religious leaders in this country? This is not like the other ongoing battles over religion in the public sphere and the separation between state and church (school prayer, Decalogue displays, funding for parochial schools), all of which raise debatable issues of public and private values.

The validity of evolutionary theory is about scientific knowledge. It's not a debate over values.

They have gone a bridge too far. School boards and state legislatures which legally require that ID be mentioned in biology classes, as a number have done and more are considering doing, are abusing the coercive power of the state. It is no longer about defending religious values in society, which is a noble cause, but about aggressively insisting that others pay heed to their dogma.

No comments: