"There are only two ways of telling the complete truth—anonymously and posthumously."Thomas Sowell

Monday, December 27, 2004

Intelligent Design Debate

Blogger Joe Carter has an interesting discussion of Intelligent Design (ID) theory going on at the Evangelical Outpost. Carter presents an excellent summary of the common objections to ID theory and provides very good responses to the criticisms. In addition, and quite usefully, he invites opponents of ID to post their own objections, and they are doing so with great brio. ID supporters, including Carter himself, are responding in kind. It is a very interesting debate indeed, and one with political implications as school districts consider whether to include ID in the curriculum. Read it here.


Tlaloc said...

As above, ID is not a scientific theory. The defense here is rather thin. For example they claim ID makes testable hypotheses but then curiously neglect to mention a single one.

If you want to teach ID in philosophy class thats fine, it has no place in Bio as it has no supporting evidence, no testable (much less tested) hypothesis, and hence no credible claim to being a scientific theory.

Anonymous said...

Isn't thsi strom in a tea cup confined to two boundaries:
1) The religious boundary of those who are adherents of the Genesis Chapter of teh Bible
2) Confined to the narrow geographic boundaries of the United States.

This tends to exclude the rest of humanity from the discussion. Many other religions do not believe in a Genesis as defined int eh Bible. Also, this debate is not part of the rest of the world.

I believe that this debate is once again the narrow view of the West that it is the font of science and religion. Hence, just on the strength of ID proponents in teh limited scope of the US, entire centuries of scientific thinking cannot be turned on its head.