(no subject)
Oct. 18th, 2005 07:25 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
herveusThe appearance of design is aspects of biology is overwhelming. Intelligent design is based on observed, empirical, physical evidence from nature." - Michael J. Behe, professor of biochemistry, Lehigh University, testifying in support of the Dover, Pa. school board.
Right.
That still doesn't make it science. From scientific perspective, "intelligent design" is just a handwave to gloss over things that can't yet be explained. It's a way to avoid the hard/critical thinking. Where are the testable and falsifiable predictions?
Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum is "irreducably complex" -- that it could not have evolved because it needed all of its parts to work. OK. If that's true, then how did this "intelligent designer" come up with the idea? Where did that designer come from?
It's turtles all the way down, folks.
I guess Behe is too lazy to contemplate various evolutionary false starts and dead ends that don't exist anymore.
He also says "If Darwinian theory is so fruitless at explaining the very foundation of life...one can reasonably wonder if there is some other explanation." Maybe. On the other hand, one can at least as reasonably wonder at the marvel of it, thank <fitd(s)> for the inspiration, and continue to ponder and hypothesize and test instead of throwing up one's hands and giving up.
"God is who. Evolution is how." I don't see why this has to be a disjunctive OR, nor why faith must be taught in the science classroom. Don't play stupid word games with "theory" when you know damn well that the term as applied in science does not mean that there is particular doubt, but rather that the question has survived attempts to disprove it.
Yes, Toto, I'm afraid of Kansas.
Right.
That still doesn't make it science. From scientific perspective, "intelligent design" is just a handwave to gloss over things that can't yet be explained. It's a way to avoid the hard/critical thinking. Where are the testable and falsifiable predictions?
Behe claims that the bacterial flagellum is "irreducably complex" -- that it could not have evolved because it needed all of its parts to work. OK. If that's true, then how did this "intelligent designer" come up with the idea? Where did that designer come from?
It's turtles all the way down, folks.
I guess Behe is too lazy to contemplate various evolutionary false starts and dead ends that don't exist anymore.
He also says "If Darwinian theory is so fruitless at explaining the very foundation of life...one can reasonably wonder if there is some other explanation." Maybe. On the other hand, one can at least as reasonably wonder at the marvel of it, thank <fitd(s)> for the inspiration, and continue to ponder and hypothesize and test instead of throwing up one's hands and giving up.
"God is who. Evolution is how." I don't see why this has to be a disjunctive OR, nor why faith must be taught in the science classroom. Don't play stupid word games with "theory" when you know damn well that the term as applied in science does not mean that there is particular doubt, but rather that the question has survived attempts to disprove it.
Yes, Toto, I'm afraid of Kansas.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 12:57 pm (UTC)My favorite quote from this guy: ""The conclusion that something is designed does not require knowledge of a designer." Excuse me?! "It was designed, but we're not willing to admit that it was designed by someone"?! Hello, folks, that's an active verb you got there. This is no longer a religious issue, this is no longer a scientific issue: what we got here is a grammar problem. :-)
The problem with the idea that "God is the be-all and end-all of religion" (well, OK, one of the problems) is that the next 'logical' conclusion is "If we don't say the word 'God,' it ain't religion." Sigh.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 01:43 pm (UTC)Dr. Behe says evolution is testable, but its proponents have not attempted to prove or disprove the theory.
That's bullshit on its face. His follow-on proposal for a test is laughable, and may even be a cleverly clothed straw man. Testable hypotheses have been put forth and not been found false, lending further support to the validity of evolution.
Intelligent design has, to my knowledge, not been subjected to that kind of stress and scrutiny.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-18 04:57 pm (UTC)"The conclusion that something is designed does not require knowledge of a designer..." I think means that the idea that something is designed doesn't require us to draw any conclusions about the designer. In fact, we regularly identify items in our vicinity that were quite clearly designed by one or more entities and may or may not draw conclusions about those designers.
Saying there was a designer doesn't make the designer fit the definition of God as we know it. Consider the idea of the Blind Watchmaker; Creator, but not God as we know it.