Intelligent Design problems
So I was watching a show this week about the push in the states to have Intelligent Design [wikipedia] (ID) put on an equal status with evolution in American science classes, and I got to wondering whether these ID'ers are stupid, mad, or think they're actually pulling the wool over our eyes.
It seems, on the surface, a clandestine attempt to contravene the American constitution's separation of Church and State - enforced in this instance by a blanket ban on worship in state-run schools - under the guise of a 'scientific theory'.
Underlying the problem with ID is its reliance on a 'Designer' that they refuse to actively consider. ID, they say, is about showing from the evidence in the world that there is a designer. Fine in principle, but the nature of that 'Designer' is what removes ID from the realms of science and into the bailiwick of Religious Education - if you insist on bringing it into schools at all.
If the Designer is in this universe with us, then the argument for the origins of life don't end, they simply transfer: instead of being 'where did we come from' the question becomes 'where did the designer come from', which necessitates investigation into the designer's nature.
If the Designer isn't in this universe - existed somewhere outside of the big-bang, and caused it all to happen - then this is God we're talking about. It makes no allegations about rituals, about whether God is good or right, omniscient or omnipotent, but it is our creator: this is the agency who caused everything to be, and put us in it, it is someone to blame for all the bad things that happen.
It leads, inevitably - if you are seeking the origins of life - to the question 'Who made the designer?'. Come to think of it, who made us? The other problem with ID is the vast gulf that lies between 'Design' and 'being'. Even if we accept the idea that we were 'designed', ID has (to my admittedly limited knowledge) made no reference to how that design came to fruition. Who, or what is 'the maker'?
I'm pretty open about being a sort of a humanist - I don't believe in any sort of God, Gods, higher purpose or any of that - and I recall hearing it described by a Catholic once as 'morality without a religion to follow'. ID, I find, is something far more scary: a religion without morality.
In the interests of balance, here is the Intelligent Design Network's view of the world. I don't buy it, but maybe they do... No-one else seems to, either. I couldn't on a cursory search find a site dedicated to debunking the Creationists/ID'ers ideas: that's the level of contempt, apparently, the scientific community holds for this 'theory'.
It seems, on the surface, a clandestine attempt to contravene the American constitution's separation of Church and State - enforced in this instance by a blanket ban on worship in state-run schools - under the guise of a 'scientific theory'.
Underlying the problem with ID is its reliance on a 'Designer' that they refuse to actively consider. ID, they say, is about showing from the evidence in the world that there is a designer. Fine in principle, but the nature of that 'Designer' is what removes ID from the realms of science and into the bailiwick of Religious Education - if you insist on bringing it into schools at all.
If the Designer is in this universe with us, then the argument for the origins of life don't end, they simply transfer: instead of being 'where did we come from' the question becomes 'where did the designer come from', which necessitates investigation into the designer's nature.
If the Designer isn't in this universe - existed somewhere outside of the big-bang, and caused it all to happen - then this is God we're talking about. It makes no allegations about rituals, about whether God is good or right, omniscient or omnipotent, but it is our creator: this is the agency who caused everything to be, and put us in it, it is someone to blame for all the bad things that happen.
It leads, inevitably - if you are seeking the origins of life - to the question 'Who made the designer?'. Come to think of it, who made us? The other problem with ID is the vast gulf that lies between 'Design' and 'being'. Even if we accept the idea that we were 'designed', ID has (to my admittedly limited knowledge) made no reference to how that design came to fruition. Who, or what is 'the maker'?
I'm pretty open about being a sort of a humanist - I don't believe in any sort of God, Gods, higher purpose or any of that - and I recall hearing it described by a Catholic once as 'morality without a religion to follow'. ID, I find, is something far more scary: a religion without morality.
In the interests of balance, here is the Intelligent Design Network's view of the world. I don't buy it, but maybe they do... No-one else seems to, either. I couldn't on a cursory search find a site dedicated to debunking the Creationists/ID'ers ideas: that's the level of contempt, apparently, the scientific community holds for this 'theory'.
posted by Moghal at
9:55 AM
1 Comments:
Following up on this, I read that somewhere in the region of 50% of Americans believe that the Book of Genesis is a better account of our origins than Darwinian evolution!!! If anyone knows where I can find a social/geographical breakdown of these figures I'd appreciate a link.
Cheers
By
Moghal, at Tue Jan 10, 10:45:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home