Friday, August 19, 2005

Is "Unintelligent Design" too clichéd a heading?

Usually the lonely libertarian tends to stay out of the whole evolution debate. But lately I've seen an increasing number of references to intelligent design, such as this David Limbaugh piece arguing that the teaching of intelligent design in science classes should not be rejected.

Now I'm no scientist, but as I understand it, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory. As I also understand it, intelligent design, or any similar sort of theory, can't be considered a scientific theory because it assumes the existence of God or some sort of supernatural force that can in no way be proved or disproved.

Just because intelligent design attempts to fit a religiously based theory into the context of scientific knowledge does not make it in fact a scientific theory. I seem to recall a nonscientific theory that aliens somehow encouraged human evolution, yet we don't waste time in science classes showing 2001: A Space Odyssey as a follow up to lessons on evolution.

The conservative case for intelligent design always seems to be a bit of a publicity stunt. Maybe religious conservatives should focus on issues of religion in public life, like the posting of the Ten Commandments, that make liberals look ridiculous, rather than focusing on trying to incorporate religion into science.


Blogger Kerry said...

This Intelligent Design stuff angers me profusely. The idea that it should be taught in science class alongside evolution is ridiculous. There is no scientific basis for it.

Philosophy class is far more appropriate for those sorts of radical discussions or debates on Intelligent Design.

I mean, Science is empirically based, it's about supporting or refuting theories through experimental design, it's not about philosophising.


10:52 AM  
Blogger Kerry said...

...and yes, that would be too clichéd a heading :)

10:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home