Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/Evolution vs. Intelligent Design"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Links: bbc article on science award) |
m (→Point Counterpoint: sidebar -> sidenote) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
* The Intelligent Design (ID) folks need to admit that while evolution may be just a theory, it fits the facts very well, and while ID may be a theory in the most general sense ("a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action" [http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory], "An unproven conjecture" [[wiktionary:theory|wiktionary]]), it is not a ''scientific'' theory ("A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena, which has testable implications, and which is well tested and widely accepted as true." [[wiktionary:theory|wiktionary]]), which is (where any doubt exists) generally a requirement for including such ideas in academic curricula. | * The Intelligent Design (ID) folks need to admit that while evolution may be just a theory, it fits the facts very well, and while ID may be a theory in the most general sense ("a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action" [http://m-w.com/dictionary/theory], "An unproven conjecture" [[wiktionary:theory|wiktionary]]), it is not a ''scientific'' theory ("A coherent statement or set of statements that attempts to explain observed phenomena, which has testable implications, and which is well tested and widely accepted as true." [[wiktionary:theory|wiktionary]]), which is (where any doubt exists) generally a requirement for including such ideas in academic curricula. | ||
* The evolutionists need to admit that just because something doesn't have a lot of supporting data doesn't mean it isn't (or couldn't be) true, although it may well mean that it is highly unlikely. They also need to admit that we don't yet know enough about the universe to say that it couldn't have been (or wasn't) designed by an intelligent being. | * The evolutionists need to admit that just because something doesn't have a lot of supporting data doesn't mean it isn't (or couldn't be) true, although it may well mean that it is highly unlikely. They also need to admit that we don't yet know enough about the universe to say that it couldn't have been (or wasn't) designed by an intelligent being. | ||
| − | * The ID folks need to admit that until they have a specific theoretical argument with some testable conclusions, postulating an intelligent entity (which itself would need to be explained) when there are other simpler explanations is, as they say, making things unnecessarily complicated*.{{ | + | * The ID folks need to admit that until they have a specific theoretical argument with some testable conclusions, postulating an intelligent entity (which itself would need to be explained) when there are other simpler explanations is, as they say, making things unnecessarily complicated*.{{sidenote|*'''complicated''': see [[Wikipedia:Occam's Razor|Occam's Razor]], a principle attributed to a 14th-century Franciscan friar who apparently agreed that it made proving the existence of God rather iffy [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15636a.htm]}} |
* The evolutionists need to stop worrying that Intelligent Design will, all by itself, turn schoolchildren into Bible-thumping science-haters, and focus on making sure that the scientific method and logical thinking are taught well – so that those children will be immune from B.S. of any persuasion, which is really the greater battle* (regardless of which side of the Creation debate you're on). | * The evolutionists need to stop worrying that Intelligent Design will, all by itself, turn schoolchildren into Bible-thumping science-haters, and focus on making sure that the scientific method and logical thinking are taught well – so that those children will be immune from B.S. of any persuasion, which is really the greater battle* (regardless of which side of the Creation debate you're on). | ||
{{quoteon}}*'''greater battle''': "Human [[Wikiquote:History|history]] becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -- H. G. Wells{{quoteoff}} | {{quoteon}}*'''greater battle''': "Human [[Wikiquote:History|history]] becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." -- H. G. Wells{{quoteoff}} | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
...which is, perhaps, back to square one. Is this what the discussion is really about – [[Wikipedia:Empiricism|Empiricism]] versus other ways of discovering reality? If so, what is Intelligent Design truly based on? (Empiricism is often seen as being in opposition to [[Wikipedia:continental rationalism|continental rationalism]]; does the reasoning behind Intelligent Design arise out of something like continental rationalism, or some other school of thought?) | ...which is, perhaps, back to square one. Is this what the discussion is really about – [[Wikipedia:Empiricism|Empiricism]] versus other ways of discovering reality? If so, what is Intelligent Design truly based on? (Empiricism is often seen as being in opposition to [[Wikipedia:continental rationalism|continental rationalism]]; does the reasoning behind Intelligent Design arise out of something like continental rationalism, or some other school of thought?) | ||
| + | |||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
* [http://www.creationdigest.com/ Creation Digest]: promotes the "intelligent design" theory, although "not affiliated with, nor sponsored or controlled by any religious organization or non-profit association" | * [http://www.creationdigest.com/ Creation Digest]: promotes the "intelligent design" theory, although "not affiliated with, nor sponsored or controlled by any religious organization or non-profit association" | ||