Evolution, Intelligent Design, et al.
I'm not going to do a whole separate post about this, but I wanted to link to an article from this weekend's Washington Post magazine about the whole evolution/intelligent design issue. I have read tons of articles on this topic, and I found this one particularly good and, um, balanced. One caveat: not all who have studied Darwin agree that his writings provided support for the later theory of so-called "social Darwinism." I have read articles that argue just the opposite -- that social Darwinism is a corruption of Darwin's work. I don't know enough to profess a belief one way or the other, but I thought I would at least flag that issue.
Anyway, enjoy the article!
Anyway, enjoy the article!
posted by Sandi | 10:08 AM
5 Comments:
Wow, what a long article. Don't let page 5 deceive you, you might be halfway done after the first 4 pages!!! :-)
I can see mentioning to kids that some scientists conclude "intelligent design," but teaching it as science seems a bit odd to me. "Faith" and "Science" are different school subjects. IMHO.
Sandi,
This was definitely an interesting read, especially all the history of the debate and all. I must say that I'm not well read on the Intelligent Design debate so I don't have a whole lot to contribute here. I would add, however, that if anything, postmodernism has taught us that no one, not evolutionary theorists or intelligent design theorists, are objective. We all come to the table with assumptions and biases, some open, some hidden, some of which we are probably unaware.
Al,
On the faith and science issue you bring up (which is also in the article), I don't know that intelligent design necessarily falls in the realm of faith, though because it is an argument that is faith-motivated (if you will), it seems people want to put it there. I would suggest that it rather more belongs in the realm of philosophy, if you want to get specific philosophy of religion, but not necessarily just religion. I see it in the realm of the so-called "unmoved mover" or "first cause" sort of philosophical thinking. I hope this makes sense.
I'd love to see more people here engage this discussion.
Me too, Duane....
I can see your point. Philosophy makes sense to me. But not science.
The heart of the debate is over the definition of science. ID proponents want to revise the definition of science to include the supernatural. Which would leave it pretty much indistinguishable from religion which is, of course, the intent.
Yeah, there are some credentialed scientists who are in favor of ID, but most are not biologists. Moreover, while the use of credentialed scientists as the mouthpieces for the theory is new, there is pretty much a direct and unbroken link between creationism and ID. ID was just the new label slapped on the old theory of creationism after Edwards v. Aguillard, in which the Supreme Court in 1987 rejected Louisiana's "equal time" statute.
I agree with Duane that ID is philosophy rather than science. Dressing it up in a lab coat, as the saying goes, does not make it science.
I'm wearing long sleeves. Highs in the upper 50s. Sure, there's sewage in the road, but who said paradise had to be perfect?
I'm going to ask Juvenal if he wants to add anything. He's actually read the science books.
Me, science was my least favorite subject.
Post a Comment
<< Home