I never thought I'd see the day when I was starting up a blog, instead of just reading one. My, how times have changed...
And now I have no idea what to say. Bugger.
Suppose an introduction is as good as any!
I'm Will, 22 (but not for long!), and in between dropping out of degree courses, I'm a computer enthusiast. Which is nice.
What's that, I hear you cry? Another identical blog about hardware, and how X is better than Y, and how I like cats? Well, no, maybe, and no.
Firstly, I (and my partner in crime) are musicians! So, there'll be jaunty japes about guitars, rock etc. Hopefully in the future, this blog will get a couple more members, and we can pool our collective resources in to something beautiful.
Second point - this is not a hardware comparison site. Alongside the usual X vs Y, we'll hopefully be providing the what-ifs and grand philosophical questions behind our kind, and provoking thought!
Third, I'm mildly allergic. Go dogs!
Anyway, I've waffled on for too long, so I'll let go for now, and hopefully catch you in the next update!
Will (MaverickWill)
I have read a lot of articles against intelligent design, written by scientists and science education lobbyists. Common to most articles is the claim that intelligent design is just a backdoor approach for religious fundamentalism that is aimed to close off scientific inquiry.
ReplyDeleteAre ID proponents really anti-science, religious zealots who want to impede scientific advance?
You said you could provide me with answers ;)
I'm going to take the logical approach in this.
ReplyDeleteIn the US, the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District led to the ruling that ID cannot be taught as an alternative to evolution in schools, that it was based in creationism, and had no scientific grounding.
While the proponents of ID have their reasons behind their logic, which remain entirely their own, anything based in faith that tries to pass itself off as scientific, in order to prevent a scientific theory being discussed or taught, is damaging. By all means, teach faith to children - ideally, all the faiths - but leave science in the lab and beliefs in another classroom. Let the children take the ideas, and make what they want. That's how we make the future, surely?
Did I do well?
The fact is that there is evidence to suggest that there is design in the laws and composition of the universe, and possibly in the biochemical pathways and molecular machines of living beings.
ReplyDeleteNaturalistic materialism says that this evidence is really just "appearance of design," and not real design. Accordingly, the appearance of design is just a natural function of the human brain in looking for patterns. According to naturalistic materialism, this appearance of design will disappear as more evidence is revealed. In essence, all design arguments are of the "God of the Gaps" variety.
However, in several areas of research (e.g., design of the universe, origin of life, and genetics), the "gaps" are increasing as more evidence is uncovered. This fact suggests that the "gaps" are not really gaps, but actual evidence of design, since God of the gaps implies that the evidence should decrease the number of gaps as more evidence accumulates.
The anti-intelligent design movement is concerned about where intelligent design will lead. The most vocal of their members are avowed atheists, who hate religion and wish to exterminate it altogether. Since the evidence is swinging against them, the are now resorting to emotional arguments to attempt to garner support against intelligent design. Michale Shermer says intelligent design proponents "have no interest in doing science at all."John Rennie says that intelligent design "would close off inquiry with nonanswers." Both statements are gross generalizations that do not apply to the vast majority of design proponents. These red herring arguments are designed to do one thing - get the reader to hate the "evil" intelligent design proponents. The anti-intelligent design movement is running scared, since their vision of a God-free world is collapsing all around them.
So I guess William it's subjective. There is no real wrong or right answer, it all depends on your stand point.
I agree with teaching faith because it instills values and morals that wouldn't be taught otherwise. But another question is, what if God is science?
Then we have educated about faith and science. If it turns out we've separated the two into separate subject areas, we'll have covered the whole thing in twice as much detail as we'd have otherwise done. It's a win-win.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, I don't agree in secular schools, such as we have here in the UK. Either all of the major religions should be presented to students, or none of them should. If God is science, who is to say which God it is?
I'm also not a believer in intelligent design. It seems like a sacrifice that neither the creationists nor the evolutionists would willingly accept, and puts faith and science in bed together with no background, just for the sake of a compromise. However, that's just my opinion. For what it's worth, I've always been a church-goer, but I've placed more strength in ideas than faith.
However, this is probably (nay, definitely) going beyond the scope of my education, and moreso the scope of the blog. I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave this one in the hands of those better-informed, in more appropriate places for theological discussion than a techie's introduction.
And in case I don't see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night. :-)
I figured I would try to get you talking, considering how you did leave your entrance to this fairly open.
ReplyDeleteFound your blog by chance figured id give it a peek and see what I thought. You have very good insight and are quite smart as well.
If you'd ever like to chat, or have another debate with me, email me.
kenimsy@gmail.com
Love to chat some more.
Cheers :)