Something Awful

A friend of mine sparked my interest in the Intelligent Design debate recently and I have to say its a debate worth getting into. This is not because of the worthiness of the topic, but more the opposite. The debate appears to have an array of layers that most people don’t see.

I believe, and mind you this is supported by amateur survey, that the vast majority of people who believe in Intelligent Design believe in it because they believe in Creationism. Now Creationism as a religious view point is fine, for religious beliefs are not founded to be provable, but to be insightful. I would urge Creationists not to associate themselves with ID with out first researching the topic first.

ID is being dressed up as a scientific theory when it meets neither the national criteria nor the standards of the scientific community for being a scientific theory. Both standards state that it must be disprovable, and I dont see how ID can be. Whether you assume it is a natural or supernatural designer, how can you disprove it? No criteria is provided for this, and it is crutial. They also base their findings on outdated scientific methods. The concept of irreducible complexity which is one of ID’s main supporting ideas states that certain things are too complex to have evolved randomly. They usually cite the human eye and human immune system, both of which have shown their respective missing links.

One of the primary goals of the ID supporters is to teach ID in the classroom along side or in place of evolution. This does not seem advizable with ID in its current state. It does not provide any basis for prediction, or any other benefits to the scientific community. Some say that they should at least mention that evolution is an unproven theory and that ID is an alternative theory. If we do this, then where do we draw the line for alternative theories, and who will make that decision? Others say that we should explain the controversy over evolution and ID, but this sounds like a topic out side the scope of a science class and more suited to a political science class. In my oppinion ID shows more kinship with philosophical thoeries than with science and would be an excellent addition to such a class. Unfortunately most public schools dont teach political science or philosophy, so I dont really see a place for it. I would concede it is worth mentioning in the science class that macroevolution has not been proven and that other alternative theories exist.

Politically the movement seems as though it is pushing ID as creationism, or at least by advocates of having creationism in public schools. These people would likely disagree with me, but I call them as I see them. Granted the majority of U.S. citizen’s are of some Christian denomination, but it is unjust for the majority to enforce its views on minorities.

In short, Intelligent Design in its current state offers little to no benefit to the scientific community, and I would advise people not to side with it uninformed. ID is making a mockery of both science and religion, so I would advise Creationists to stick to their ideas rather than adopting ID.

“A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of distruction.” –

8 thoughts on “Something Awful

  1. Anonymous say:

    you are a nut, and some day your stong opinions and refusal to back down are going to get you in trouble

  2. james say:

    Perhaps, but at least I’m willing to put my name behind my opinions.

  3. Sarah say:

    To be fair, Creationists are hardly a majority. They’re just a really, really vocal minority with a lot of backing.

  4. james say:

    I wouldnt say either way, but based entirely on religion it would imply that they are.

    Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.) source

  5. mindy say:

    sorry, i thought i had to be a member of before i could voice my opinions on here

  6. james say:

    Thought this was worth adding.

    The John Templeton Foundation, a major funder of projects that aim to reconcile religion and science, has given none of its $36 million in annual science-related grants to intelligent design research, said foundation spokeswoman Pamela Thompson. “We do not consider it a hard science,” she said. “We feel that it is not something that’s important to universities.”

  7. anonymouse say:

    I apologize for using “anonymous”, but I was unable to create, uh, I mean design, uh, evolve a blogger account.
    I, too, think that Creationists should disassociate themselves from Intelligent Design – not because the argument has no worth, but because of the disingenuousness of pretending to be something you are not.
    I am a christian and I believe in a literal 6 day creation – and I am not afraid to say it.
    I also believe in science – and I am not afraid to stand up in church and say that, either.
    The debate is between evolution and creation; Genesis does not allow any middle ground (Gap theory, Modified gap theory, Theistic evolution, or some amorphous Intelligent design).
    Arguments rage, point and counter-point are raised and discussed, but in the end, I choose to believe in the Creation of the universe and all that is in it, and someone else chooses to believe in the evolution of it all.

    But in so choosing what we will believe, we must accept the implications that come with that choice.
    If I choose evolution, then I choose to believe there is no right or wrong, no good or bad. Why? Because there is no ultimate authority to say, “This is right, and this is wrong. And it is right or wrong simply because I say so.”
    Do you know anyone who actually lives this way? I don’t.
    The very argument that creationism “should” be excluded from the classroom is based on the notion that not doing so isn’t “right”.
    If evolution is the truth, I should be willing, nay, Eager to lay it side by side with the Bible’s account of the creation and just see which one science allies itself with.
    Can we do that?

  8. james say:

    It sounds like you are trying to argue creationism over evolution based on morality. As the secular humanists have said for quite some time, you do not need religion to have morality. Society can dictate what is right or wrong and in some cases much better than religion can.

    We can easily see that it is “bad” to steal, kill, adulter, etc, based entirely on observation of those actions’ effects on society. Many times when religion is brought into the scenario people start blurring what is right by society and what is right by them. I think, and mind you this is pure speculation, that more wars have been fought under the guise or pretense of religion than ANY OTHER reason.

    I’m not saying religion is bad, I’m saying zealotry is bad.

    I’m not saying you are a zealot.

    To your point about laying evolution and creationism’s accounts side by side and seeing which one science sides with… I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at. Science will obviously hold with evolution, because it is scientific. Not to bash creationism, but it has no scientific basis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

fourteen − fourteen =