The thing about blogs I've noticed is that "everybody is anybody"...experts of all trades so to speak.
Over at Rightwingnuthouse the blogger Rick Moran is going bonzo over President Bush's remarks on intelligent design. Before I start I should note my bias as a person with a Ph'd and a member of the Christian Science Institute:
I think the subject can be "intelligently discussed" as it will be like it or not, without resorting to referring to people as "loons", but then I learned a long time ago in debate that when there is no ammo, you fire blanks.
Ok, here is what is posted:
"Welcome Instapundit Readers!
My, my some commenters seem to be in a snit…or is it sniff? I will reprint my reply to those who wish to tell me that ID is science, or that evolution is “only” a theory, or that we haven’t found any transitional fossiles, or that I’m a godless heathen who will burn in hellfire for all eternity, etc.
1. Anyone who says that ID is “science” is a loon.
2. Anyone who says “evolution is only a theory” doesn’t know anything about science. The “Theory” of Relativity is a theory…except one should perhaps ask the residents of Hiroshima about the efficacy of that particular set of concepts.
3. Anyone who believes that the Big Bang is worthless as an explantion as to how the universe came into existence not only doesn’t know anything about cosmology, but also denies the existence of the nose on the end of your face.
4. Those who agitate for the teaching of ID “along side” evolution are hoping for a day 20 years from now when their children or grandchildren are sweeping the floors of Bio-tech factories owned by the Japanese or Germans instead of owning the damn things themselves as they should.
When the rest of the world embraces ID with the same fervor that the zealots in this country do, come back and talk to me. Until then…shut your yaps."
Ah...nothing more foolish than uninformed....well, you get the point.
Anyway....to his points:
1. Anyone who says that ID is science is a fool.
The same could be said for the form of evolution that ( although the original "theory" has been revised 175 times over the last 50 years) is taught today. Yet there IS a basis for intelligent design, as "happen chance" cannot explain everything we know about the universe. Science by definition is the study of demonstratable facts or that which can be tested and replicated through research. Of course neither evolution nor ID could be considered a science under this definition. The law of relativity can and has been observed - although we dont' know all there is to know about it's implications.
The big bang for all it's ferver, is a very much a theory but one that flies in the fact of science, namely The Second Law of Therodynamics, according to which "everything goes from order to disorder" This is of course is the reverse of what evolution, and subsequently the big bang teaches. This is a very significant in itself, and to this date the point has never been succesfully refuted.
We might argue the value of teaching ID in schools vs. a theory - yes Rick it is a theory - such as evolution, and truly give students the choice to take a class either/or. Many fine and learned men and women of Science, many whom are former evolutionist have come to see ID as a valid concept.
Quite frankly, I don't think Rick is going to hell, but he might get a little more information of both subjects before speaking out. But then again, blogging wouldn't be so much fun would it?
UPDATED: Just for the purpose of "intelligent discussion", let's define oft misused terms which I have referenced but need further expansion:
Science has to do with careful observations in the present. Unlike true science, both evolution and creation are, at best, historical reconstructions of the unobserved past since no one can empirically observe either. In reality they are complete worldviews, ways to interpret all observations in the present, and a basis for all of life's decisions. In previous years, "science" was understood to mean "the search for truth," but many now limit that to a search for naturalistic explanations, even if that search leads to hopeless conclusions.
Evolution implies "descent from a common ancestor" with all of life related, consisting of modified forms of very different things, such as a person descending from a fish. Evolution does not mean merely "change," for all things change with time. For clarity we must restrict this term to meaningful change, especially the descent of new types of organisms from earlier, different ones.
Creation denotes abrupt appearance of basic categories of life without any basic type having descended from some other category, and with no extensive change once the category appears. Lack of change is known as stasis. Fish have always been fish, ever since they first appeared, and dogs have always been dogs. Fish and dogs and all else may have varied a little, but did not come from a common ancestor.
The term microevolution is sometimes used for small, horizontal changes that are readily observed (such as the various breeds of dog), while macroevolution implies large vertical changes (fish to dog) that have never been observed. These big changes constitute evolution as Darwin used the term and as the general public understands it.
Subscribe by Email
Follow Updates Articles from This Blog via Email
No Comments