August 6, 2005

I DON"T HAVE A FAITH, JUST A THEORY!:

Faith vs. evidence (LA Times, August 6, 2005)

SCIENTISTS WHO MOANED when they read this week that President Bush favors teaching "intelligent design" along with the Darwinian theory of evolution should be grateful for how far the president has come. In 1999, as Texas governor and GOP presidential front-runner, George W. Bush said much the same about creationism, which tried to force natural history to match the biblical creation story. At least creationism's successor, known as ID to its adherents, makes room for paleontology and human descent from apes. [...]

Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to explain everything, but theorizes that from the earliest life, genetic mutations providing a survival edge were retained and amplified, leading to species diversity and specialized traits (such as Lance Armstrong's lung capacity or fluorescent deep-water fish).

Both are, to a certain point, about biology. But ID also demands belief in the untestable. There it becomes faith, not science. Science explicitly rejects belief without direct or indirect evidence. Teaching students, at taxpayer expense, to see them as comparable leads straight off the path of scientific rigor. The best scientists may, of course, cherish a religious faith, but they don't confuse one for the other.


Kind of awkward that their own explanation makes it clear that Darwinism is likewise a faith, though in science you call it "theorizing" rather than believing. And, of course, the President still believes that the intelligence doing the designing is God, so his Creationism is unchanged. Meanwhile, the direct and indirect evidence of evolution is, at worst, equally supportive of all three isms.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 6, 2005 10:06 AM
Comments

genetic mutations providing a survival edge were retained and amplified

It'd be nice if they actually understood the theory they were defending.

Posted by: David Cohen at August 6, 2005 10:30 AM

David:

Parrots don't understand what they say.

Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 11:00 AM


So what is the test that Evolution uses that
ID can't? Since ID has been shown to work in the
lab and Evolution hasn't, maybe that's a bad button
to push.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at August 6, 2005 1:12 PM

The problem with ID is that it's an infinite regress. As will be gleefully pointed out by every smartass teenage boy in class.

Posted by: ray at August 6, 2005 2:41 PM

ray:

All evolutionary theories are.

Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 6:21 PM

ID is the proposition that nature can't get from here to there without help.


Posted by: ptah at August 6, 2005 9:56 PM

A proposition that is confirmed by observation and experiment.

Posted by: oj at August 6, 2005 10:03 PM

"Since ID has been shown to work in the
lab and Evolution hasn't, maybe that's a bad button
to push."

What lab experiment has shown ID to work? Link?

Posted by: creeper at August 8, 2005 1:01 AM
« SWEET ISOLATIONISM: | Main | DELTA SUNSET: »