I come back, and you people aren't discussing anything particularly interesting, so let's talk about this instead.
I...have always had a touch-and-go relationship with intelligent design. I see the evidence its proponents point toward, and am not disposed to reject the notion of the existence of an Architect, but the leaders of the movement all use it to advance the idea of a properly Judeo-Christian God, and I cannot follow them there. The idea is ridden to market by creationists of all stripes, and it is easy enough to reject it e manus—but let’s not.
Perhaps it seemed reasonable enough to follow Behe in concluding that the design extrapolation is scientific because it is and must be “based on physical, observable data and logical inferences.” Clearly, the matter is not so simple, or, rather, if it is, its simplicity eludes those whose banter clouds the issue.
In a book that disappointingly found itself under the radar, Bradley Monton manages to squeeze quite a bit of insight into a relatively thin volume. In this quote from his Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, you’ll probably see what I’m referring to:
“...Does intelligent design count as science? I maintain that it is a mistake to put too much weight on that question. Larry Laudan got the answer right:
‘If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us.’
If our goal is to believe truth and avoid falsehood, and if we are rational people who take into account evidence in deciding what to believe, then we need to focus on the question of what evidence there is for and against intelligent design. The issue of whether intelligent design counts as ‘science’ according to some contentious answer to the demarcation question [in said arena] is unimportant. Of course, with this approach it would be much harder to get a federal judge to rule that intelligent design can’t be taught in public schools. But sometimes it is more important to be intellectually honest than to do what it takes to stop people from doing something you don’t like.”
And by now, I hope, you’re properly equipped to tackle the issue at hand. If we’re honest, we should all admit that we have prejudices upon entering the discussion and attempt to rise above them. But I suppose you’ve now heard the whole of this debate—is ID science? Is that question one of particular import?
I’ve been pining to have this discussion for some time. Let’s keep things mellow.
I...have always had a touch-and-go relationship with intelligent design. I see the evidence its proponents point toward, and am not disposed to reject the notion of the existence of an Architect, but the leaders of the movement all use it to advance the idea of a properly Judeo-Christian God, and I cannot follow them there. The idea is ridden to market by creationists of all stripes, and it is easy enough to reject it e manus—but let’s not.
Perhaps it seemed reasonable enough to follow Behe in concluding that the design extrapolation is scientific because it is and must be “based on physical, observable data and logical inferences.” Clearly, the matter is not so simple, or, rather, if it is, its simplicity eludes those whose banter clouds the issue.
In a book that disappointingly found itself under the radar, Bradley Monton manages to squeeze quite a bit of insight into a relatively thin volume. In this quote from his Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, you’ll probably see what I’m referring to:
“...Does intelligent design count as science? I maintain that it is a mistake to put too much weight on that question. Larry Laudan got the answer right:
‘If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’ and ‘unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us.’
If our goal is to believe truth and avoid falsehood, and if we are rational people who take into account evidence in deciding what to believe, then we need to focus on the question of what evidence there is for and against intelligent design. The issue of whether intelligent design counts as ‘science’ according to some contentious answer to the demarcation question [in said arena] is unimportant. Of course, with this approach it would be much harder to get a federal judge to rule that intelligent design can’t be taught in public schools. But sometimes it is more important to be intellectually honest than to do what it takes to stop people from doing something you don’t like.”
And by now, I hope, you’re properly equipped to tackle the issue at hand. If we’re honest, we should all admit that we have prejudices upon entering the discussion and attempt to rise above them. But I suppose you’ve now heard the whole of this debate—is ID science? Is that question one of particular import?
I’ve been pining to have this discussion for some time. Let’s keep things mellow.
