Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/Evolution vs. Intelligent Design"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Point Counterpoint: some significant revisions)
Line 10: Line 10:
 
* 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 such lack may well mean that it is also 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. (Such admissions do not contradict the theory of evolution, as far as they go.)
 
* 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 such lack may well mean that it is also 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. (Such admissions do not contradict the theory of evolution, as far as they go.)
 
* 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 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). (However, ID should never be presented as representing the dominant scientific belief, and students should learn to understand the difference between the two meanings of "theory", and why it is important.)
+
* 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
−
{{quoteon}}*'''greater battle''': "Human [[Wikiquote:History|history]] becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." –H. G. Wells, and "The enemy is bullshit." –[[Lars-Erik Nelson]]{{quoteoff}}
 
−
==Further Investigation==
 
−
That said, the Intelligent Designers need to get much more specific about this theory of theirs, which is at best vague. To look at a few obvious points: if a supreme being (often referred to as "God") did create the universe...
 
−
* Where did He come from?
 
−
* Did He mess with it any further after creating it, and if so did he ever stop?
 
−
* If he is still tinkering with it, then why so?
 
−
* Why couldn't it be that all the fossil and geological evidence we see is truly what happened, and part of His creation?
 
−
 
 
−
Science-oriented people also need to recognize that just because a casual theory hasn't yet been formulated into something more scientifically rigorous doesn't mean that it's not worth following up; inquiry along those lines might be more productive than simply arguing against ID. For instance: what evidence could we look for which might indicate the involvement of an extra-universal being (i.e. a being based outside the universe-as-we-understand-it)? More specifically: Would this require a clear violation of the laws of physics as we understand them, or could something be consistent with those laws and yet indicate interference from outside? What would be the difference between interference from outside and interference from {beings within the universe but having more knowledge than we do}?
 
−
 
 
−
The Intelligent Design folks should be asking themselves these questions too. They also need to admit (or understand) that, as far as scientific investigation goes, unless some of these questions get answered, postulating outside interference '''as the whole explanation''' is basically admitting defeat; it's the scientific equivalent of saying "well, it was done by magic", which goes completely against the [[Wikipedia:Philosophy of science|scientific philosophy]] and doesn't really do anyone any good (except perhaps members of the church hierarchy)...
 
−
 
 
−
...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==
 
−
* [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"
 
−
* Entries from the [http://www.arn.org/ Access Research Network] [http://www.arn.org/id_faq.htm Intelligent Design FAQ]:
 
−
** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm What is Intelligent Design?]: defines but does not give details
 
−
** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20can%20you%20tell%20if%20something%20is%20designed.htm How Can You Tell if Something is Designed?]: presents an argument based on the presumption that non-randomness implies intelligence (need to write a bit about why this is wrong --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 21:14, 24 Dec 2005 (CST))
 
−
** Further entries in the FAQ either start out by asserting the conclusion ("The more we learn about living organisms, the more they look like products of design..." [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20does%20intelligent%20design%20apply%20to%20biology.htm]) and reassert the "order can only come from intelligence" argument ([http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Haven%27t%20scientists%20shown%20that%20biological%20systems%20evolved%20naturalistically.htm])
 
−
** Counterarguments to the evidence for evolution:
 
−
*** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Doesn%27t%20the%20fossil%20evidence%20support%20naturalistic%20evolution.htm  fossil evidence] at least makes some concrete points worth investigating
 
−
*** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Can%27t%20we%20actually%20see%20evolution%20in%20action.htm Can't We Actually see Evolution in Action?] gets more into the issue
 
−
*** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20about%20the%20molecular%20evidence.htm molecular evidence]: I suspect there are some distortions in here, but don't have the facts immediately at hand
 
−
 
−
** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Doesn%27t%20Intelligent%20Design%20refer%20to%20something%20supernatural.htm But Doesn't Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural?] at least answers some of the definitional questions about ID; apparently ID doesn't care whether the Intelligent Designer is God or an advanced alien culture
 
−
** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/Isn%27t%20%27intelligent%20design%27%20another%20name%20for%20%27scientific%20creationism%27.htm Isn't Intelligent Design Another Name for Scientific Creationism?] distinguishes ID from Creationism and actually gets down to some specifics about ID
 
−
** [http://www.arn.org/idfaq/How%20many%20scientists%20take%20this%20stuff%20seriously.htm How Many Scientists Take This Stuff Seriously?] briefly describes scientific interest in ID
 
−
==Links==
 
−
* '''2005-12-23''':
 
−
** [http://aetiology.blogspot.com/2005/12/those-who-do-not-learn-from-history.html Those who do not learn from history...]: a bit of history on religion-based science
 
−
** [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4552466.stm Evolution takes science honours]
 
−
 

Revision as of 14:50, 5 June 2007

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: a biased analysis

Related Articles

Point Counterpoint

The following list is largely proposed so that rhetoricists can stop using various irrelevant points to derail debate on this subject.

  • There's no point in denying that evolution is "just" a theory, because it is. (However, it is currently the only real theory available; Intelligent Design does not make any falsifiable claims, nor does it make any predictions which might be confirmed by additional evidence.)
  • 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" (m-w.com), "An unproven conjecture" (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)), which is (where any doubt exists) generally a requirement for including such ideas in academic science 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 such lack may well mean that it is also 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. (Such admissions do not contradict the theory of evolution, as far as they go.)
  • 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*.
*complicated: see 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 [1]
  • 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
Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=User:Woozle/Evolution_vs._Intelligent_Design&oldid=6512"