Is ID Dying?
Comment on the Evolutionblog
At 8:04 AM, Dr. Gary Chiang said...
Much of what we see about the debate between evolution and creation is essentially religious. Few of the opponents on either side understand what the debate is really about. It is about what we WANT to believe, not what we HAVE to believe.
Is ID dying? NO, it will never die. Although reworked to address a modern world, it is still as compelling an argument as it was when William Paley first used he "Watch on a path" analogy.
But is it science? I say yes, but as long as it challenges naturalistic evolution, the courts of the land will labeled it religious.
I have never had trouble refuting evolution in any of my university biology courses. Why? Because I stick to the scientific understanding of what evoluton really is. Once the religious nature of evolution is known, it is much easier to bring in other "religiously-based" scientific theories such as ID and Creation Science.
posted by Gary @ 9:14 PM
4 Comments:
No, ID is not dying. It is DEAD. The episode in Dover has killed, blasted, nuked, destroyed, quashed, nullified, smashed, slain and utterly crushed ID. The Dover case was Hiroshima for Intelligent Design.
The truth is that ID has never been anything other than a political/legal movement. The Dover decision was its Waterloo.
The scientific consensus on evolution is roughly the same as the scientific consensus on gravity- there is no "controversy" on the subject within the scientific community. Scientifically, the debate over evolution ended over a hundred years ago, and evolution won.
Since they have no scientific standing, ID proponents have felt the need to use the powers of school boards to inject their ideas into the public arena. But the Dover decision has struck a decisive blow for religious freedom (i.e. the right not to have the religious views of others crammed down the throat of your children) and robbed the ID folks of their ability to try such a stunt in the future. The ID proponents now have no place to turn.
ID is mortally wounded. Let it go off into the wilderness and die.
>>There is no evidence in science that supports the belief that evolution (molecule to man) is a scientific fact.<<
"Maybe there is a Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown."
>>The courts only claim that it can't be taught as science; they did not outlaw it as a valid theory of origins.<<
But trying to get ID taught in the science classes is the only thing the ID movement really does.
>>Moreover, there is this notion that Creation Science was killed in the 1980's, yet every poll conducted since then has shown that more people believe in creation than evolution. If it's dead, then why doesn't it stop growing!!!<<
By that criteria, the Earth actually WAS the center of the universe until the Copernican Theory became widely accepted. As a professor, you should be aware that the truths of science are discovered by experiment and/or observation, not popularity.
The Monk of Miletus's blog is here. The judge's ruling is here. The 139 page report is double-spaced with a large font so it doesn't take too long to read.
Thank you, stmarys.
>>You astound me with not only your ignorance, but your refusal to even consider what many bonefide scientists have been saying for decades.<<
And what does the scientific community think of the "many bonefide scientists" who preach ID? Here is the statement from Michael Behe's own university department on the subject:
"The department faculty . . . are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department.
It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
I especially like the last part.
Post a Comment
<< Home