Intelligent Design is not Science
The war between science and religion remains a popular topic on television, and a particularly fascinating battle is the stand-off between evolution and intelligent design. So of course I feel obligated to weigh in.
Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is presented as a modification of theory of evolution. It says, basically, that although evolution happens, it is guided by the intentions of an intelligent creator.
Pure evolution and Intelligent Design are alternative ideas about how life on earth came to be as we see it. This much of the debate is legitimate.
However, science is a process, not a theory. This process is: come up with an idea, devise experiments to empirically test the idea, rethink your idea based on the results; and repeat until you lose interest. Ideas that survive many such cycles and remain consistent with observation are, loosely speaking, "scientific theories" and, more importantly, if your theory doesn't work, keep looking.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, specifically rejects the process of science. It says that certain body parts could not have evolved, and moreover that their origins are beyond the reach of science to explain: such parts could only exist if they had been designed by an intelligent creator who had the end result in mind. In other words, literally, "and then a miracle happens...".
As any cook or doctor can tell you, the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts, and yet this remarkable phenomena is never taught in mathematics classes, where the whole is always exactly equal to the sum of its parts.
So why would anyone want to teach intelligent design in a science class? Seriously, why?
Intelligent Design, as I understand it, is presented as a modification of theory of evolution. It says, basically, that although evolution happens, it is guided by the intentions of an intelligent creator.
Pure evolution and Intelligent Design are alternative ideas about how life on earth came to be as we see it. This much of the debate is legitimate.
However, science is a process, not a theory. This process is: come up with an idea, devise experiments to empirically test the idea, rethink your idea based on the results; and repeat until you lose interest. Ideas that survive many such cycles and remain consistent with observation are, loosely speaking, "scientific theories" and, more importantly, if your theory doesn't work, keep looking.
Intelligent design, on the other hand, specifically rejects the process of science. It says that certain body parts could not have evolved, and moreover that their origins are beyond the reach of science to explain: such parts could only exist if they had been designed by an intelligent creator who had the end result in mind. In other words, literally, "and then a miracle happens...".
As any cook or doctor can tell you, the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts, and yet this remarkable phenomena is never taught in mathematics classes, where the whole is always exactly equal to the sum of its parts.
So why would anyone want to teach intelligent design in a science class? Seriously, why?
posted by Charles Ames at 8:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home