Wednesday, October 12, 2005

More argument over ID/IOT

A bunch of items, all from Tech Central Station. Commentary to the effect that "of course" a TCS writer would support ID/IOT show, more than anything else, a lack of ability to do research. Debate over evolution and ID/IOT is vigorous and healthy on this site.

Descent of Man in Dover
...the Dover district shortchanges students on two scientific matters in those guidelines: first, by characterizing intelligent design as a theory of biological evolution to be taught in science classrooms, and secondly, by foregoing what science says about the origin of life.
Creationism Is Evolving... It Has No Choice
I must respectfully disagree with my TCS colleague Douglas Kern as he argues for " Why Intelligent Design is Going to Win." Kern lays out a five-point thesis in which he predicts ID's imminent victory. But his points fail to make the case.
The Invention of Design
After several readings I honestly could not decide whether the tone of Mr. Kern's article is the triumphalism of a partisan who believes that his side is justly winning or the enthusiasm of the late convert in the service of a new master. Perhaps it was neither of these. I do know that he confuses the product, a theory, with the method, science; that he confuses pattern with design; that he doesn't understand randomness; that he idly invokes a "metaphysics of information"; that he believes, on no evidence, in "memes"; and that he thinks that allowing appeals to the supernatural will have no ill effects on the practice of science and that adulterating their science classes will not cripple the education of our youth.

In response to Mr. Kern's second point:

2)       ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.

"Ewww…intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads."
But let me clear about one thing. I am aware of no evidence that he is a poopy-head.

But then again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No comments: