Friday, November 11, 2005

More on Intelligent Design

As I have said before, I have no dog in the "should we teach ID to kids" fight. My preference would be to simply insist that we teach what we know.

1. Darwin proposed micro and macro evolution
2. Micro evolution is considered proven scientific fact.
3. Darwin dismissed macro evolution before his death.
4. There is little to no evidence of macro evolution.
5. Scientists disagree about the likelihood of it's validity.
6. Those who doubt the validity have not offered likely scientific alternative theories. In other words, they don't think we know how it happened.

Done. Science. Good.

I think God did it, and probably did it through some scientific process that we may discover that is not macro evolution. Done. Not science, religion. Also good but not in the classroom.


Tammy Bruce points to an article by Uriah Kriegel at TCS where he asks: Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

It is a good read and I agree with him for the most part, it is not a scientific theory. It is not a scientific theory if there is no reasonable experiment that could prove it false. This seems to be true for ID. I would ask an additional question. Is Intelligent Design a scientifically based observation or collection of observations? We do teach kids about observations that are not theories. I don't have an answer to the question, but I think it is a valid question. In my mind, from what I have read about ID, this comes down to how overwhelming is the math? And, mind you, we are not talking about arithmetic here but highly complex mathematics.


Post a Comment

<< Home