This will be my first post promoted from the comments. I make a distinction between Intelligent Design, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Creationism.
Intelligent Design is a legitimate philosophical position and world view. I see no problem with Paley's watch or Gonzalez's priviledged planet. They are not science, of course. There no test involved, just "that looks too good to be by chance". It's not my opinion (I am a naturalist), but I'm not aware that anyone has to share my opinion, and I don't claim I can prove naturalism beyond reasonable doubt.
Creationism is a view subject to scientific scrutiny. Either the world is 6,000 years old, or it is not, and you can form various tests and make predictions. Sure, it's been falsified in dozens, if not hundreds, of different ways, but it at least tries to put facts into play. Many leading Creationists are just plain dishonest, and others create highly fanciful scenarios in which their finding might be right, except for the half-dozen other predictions these scenarios make, so the view gets rejected. Of course, ultimately you can't disprove miracles, so you can't disprove the concept of some God making the workd 6,000 years ago (or last Thursday) with all the signs of apparent age. However, outside of varyng degrees of applying that scenario, their predictions fail. I used to be a Creationist, and I have respcet for many that I know.
Intelligent Design Creationism is a blend of the worst traits of the two. It's a claim to scientific rigor for a philosohical postion, a basic category error. You find the dishonesty of the practitioners prevalent in the postings of many of the leading proponents, especially those affiliated with the Discovery Institute. These supposed scientists do no science, complain about not being heard when they don't offer anything to hear, claim persecution where none can be shown, quote mine as badly as the worst Creationists, and oftentimes lack the dignity to admit the smallest of errors. As far I can tell, the primary focus of their movement is to sneak in their version of what science should be through general-public politics. I have no respect for such people, just pity for the public they dupe and fleece.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
"Intelligent Design is a legitimate philosophical position and world view.... They are not science, of course. There no test involved..."
I agree Eric, but from my past experience with you, I'm not sure you think anyone, anywhere, who expresses any kind of sympathy for this philosophical view is not actually just what you call an "IDC" type.
I have found your imputations of creationist motives to any person whose work is even cited by the Discovery Institue (such as respected biologists at the University of Chicago, etc.) to be somewhat disconcerting in the past.
Much of the "intelligent design argument" is not really an argument for creationism in any traditional sense of the word. Most of it is really just an argument against some of the fundamental tenets of the modern synthesis, which, I believe, has been over-promoted and under-criticized in the past even though subject to tons of legitimate questions and criticisms. Not sayin the criticisms haven't always been there, and haven't been well-articulated, just that the "mainstream thought" tended to cavalierly dismiss such criticisms without much more than glib assertion and metaphyical presuppositions as a basis for doing so.
Not everyone who doesn't subscribe to the modern synthetic theory of evolution is a disguised creationist with ulterior political and religious motives, ya know?
I have found your imputations of creationist motives to any person whose work is even cited by the Discovery Institue (such as respected biologists at the University of Chicago, etc.) to be somewhat disconcerting in the past.
If you mean Dr. Shapiro, that was based strictly on what he wrote. If you mean Dr. Woese, I don't believe I ever assigned creationist motives to him.
Post a Comment