Relativity is Crap
"The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." -- The Intelligent Design Network.
Intelligent Design is not a theory. It's a refutation of an existing theory, yes, but it does not propose a scientific explanation for natural phenomena and so is not a theory in and of itself. "No, it isn't" is not a theory--do we have "Relativity is Crap" Theory, "String Theory is Bullshit" Theory?
Yet the press keeps referring to it as a theory. "The theory of intelligent design," the fifth paragraph of this article begins. The rest of the article describes how Bill Frist agrees with the president and wants both Evolutionary Theory and I.D. taught in the classroom.
Bill Frist knows that it's not a theory. The man went to Harvard; surely he knows what a theory is. I don't know why he's going along with it (but I have a hunch). No, I'm being cynical. Maybe he really is interested in being fair, in presenting both sides.
I think that we should present both sides when teaching all subjects. Let's start with history. You can't teach about the moon landing without covering the "The moon landing was hoaxed" theory, right? Wrong. Presenting both sides only works if both sides have about equal credibility.
posted by Marie Antoinette at 10:45 PM
10 Comments:
I don't get it. A theory is only a theory if is accepted by scientists from institutions like Harvard?
Tell me-what is your definition of "theory"?
I have always been under the impression that a theory was a perception of how something works based upon evidence gained from careful observation.
I refuse to use the words "intelligent design". The republicans have done it again..come up with nice sounding words to describe Christian mythology. ID is just Creationism dressed up in a tux.
In regards to Mary,
Agreed. Naming it "Intelligent Design" was rather childish on their part.
I.D is a little looser than Creationism. It doesn't concern itself with how old the earth is, and it doesn't care who the "intelligent designer" is.
In regards to D. Elrod,
A theory is what you say it is, yes. A theory is an explanation of how something works, supported by evidence based on scientific observation. A theory must also be falsifiable.
Since we can't scientifically observe this intelligent designer, how is ID a theory?
And since it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, ID is not falsifiable.
Since you can't scientifically observe evolution in action, how does it qualify as theory?
Because some scientist who looks at the evidence with a pre-concieved belief in evolution says it?
I could say that ID scientists are also looking at evidence with a pre-conceived belief in creationism, yes?
And the force behind evolution (microevolution) has been observed in a lab.
Marie said: I.D is a little looser than Creationism. It doesn't concern itself with how old the earth is, and it doesn't care who the "intelligent designer" is.
I would add a yet on the end of the last sentence...
They're piecing us...move creationism to ID then to some new word or words and end up back with good old creationism and Adam and Eve, created sporting a soul patch and fake boobs.
That's going to be my standard sarcastic answer to everything. "Jerry Falwell? Please. That's just Pat Robertson with fake boobs and a soul patch."
You're right that ID is not a theory, but on the other hand it's not a "refutation" of evolution either, since to refute is to "overthrow by argument, evidence or proof", and ID does nothing of the sort.
In regard to Tom,
Good point. I was not using the proper definition of refute. ID is..nothing, then.
Post a Comment
<< Home