Vomit the Lukewarm chimes in on the argument over Intelligent Design / Intelligent Origin Theory. His comments illustrate why ID/IOT has no place in science classrooms.
In other words, if the whole evolutionary history were irrefutably verified in absolutely every detail- the following statements would still be true and demonstrable:
1.) God exists, and is the benevolent creator of all things. 2.) Man has a part of his person that cannot corrupt, and will exist forever, and 3.) this part was created by the direct action of God, and 4) Man can only find happiness in the knowledge and love of God.
Item 1 is equally true even if you substitute "chemical", "kinematic", or any other adjective relating to scientific explanations for events, for "evolutionary".
Even if Newton's laws (or the laws of chemistry or quantum mechanics) were irrefutably verified in absolutely every detail - the following statements...
So?
The point is, evolution is how science explains the diversity of life around us, just as chemistry is how science explains the diversity of substances around us. Whether matter, energy, and life were made by God, by Thor, by Zeus, or by extraterrestrials as an art project has no bearing on whether the proposed theories work.
Item 2 – I hope it's true. The Pope has stated he has no problem with evolution, as long as item 2 is true, and as long as this eternal part was infused into man after the line diverged from the other animals. (Indeed, this could be one reading of God crafting the race of man from the dust of the earth. Life is basically a self-sustaining chemical reaction. In other words, the dust of the earth, in a somewhat changed form. It doesn't become Mankind (Adam) until the spirit is breathed into his nostrils. Unfortunately, attempts to measure this part have been unsuccessful. The only thing this portion of a human being seems to have any effect on is that human being.
Item 3 may or may not be true, but if God created everything else, we may presume he created this eternal part.
Item 4 is in considerable dispute on a number of points. Firstly, any number of people claim to be happy without "the knowledge and love of God". They may not be – how do we tell? Secondly, what constitutes "knowledge and love of God?" Does any religion have a monopoly on God? Jews seem able to find happiness with their God, just as Christians do with theirs. Wiccans have two Gods, the Lord and the Lady, who are male and female aspects of the unknowable.
Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, Shintoists, anamists of any number of flavors, and so on, seem to be capable of deep happiness with their understanding of God. Are they wrong? Are they lying? To themselves as well as us?
The main reason this isn't suited to be taught in science classes is that point 1 has no explanatory power.
In science, theories are not guesses or unproven facts. You don't get from a theory to a fact by supplying enough proof, any more than you get from a melody to a lyric by adding enough notes.
Theories are structures that relate facts to each other in a pattern we hope is accurate. The accuracy of this pattern is continually tested, and when facts arise which don't fit the pattern, it is either modified or scrapped.
So far, there has been no compelling need to scrap evolution.
More to the point, there has been no compelling need to scrap the greater including theory — that all things in nature can be explained in the context of natural laws. No intelligent intervention is required.
The problem with ID/IOT is that the "intelligence" is left completely undefined. There are no characteristics by which this intelligence can be recognized, no evidence anyone can point to that shows how this intelligence may have operated, and no notion of what we can expect to find, or to rule out, if this intelligent designer or intelligent originator exists.
A scientific theory has to stick its neck out. There are any number of possible facts which, if discovered, would show evolution to be false. Nothing can show there's no designer, since no one has ever described what the designer is, or what it can or cannot do, there's no reason to rule out anything at all.
Evolution doesn't allow for dragons or unicorns. An intelligent designer could create them if she wanted to.
No comments:
Post a Comment