This intelligent design debate just won't die, which is good for those that support the theory that life is so complex it must have had an intelligent designer behind it. As long as the debate continues, the theory itself gains validity. To smack it done as ludicrous and incredible would seem to be the obvious thing to do, but everyday there is another story of a group in power either approving the decision to teach it or striking it down as nothing more than "Creationism" with a slightly scientific backing. Recently this debate has been put to the courts to decide, and we are still stuck with a stalemate. In Dover, PA voters recently booted out 8 members of the educational board, all supporters of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in the public school system. Thank you Dover for restoring my faith in Pennsyltucky. Feeling proud that my fellow Americans were starting to see the light I am smacked with reality as Kansas goes ahead and approves the teaching of intelligent design alongside what they (those that voted this in) call the "flawed theory of evolution". They also went ahead and re-defined the word science while they were at it. Now science is not solely "the search for natural explanations of Phenomena". These people cannot be serious. Here is a quote from Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Board of Ed democrat on the decision, it pretty much sums up what I and most likely many informed Americans are feeling:
“This is a sad day. We’re becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that..."
I raised a point a few entries ago about why we as a nations were the only ones to be making a big stink about this. If intelligent design is such a rationale and non biased theory, then why are we the only ones to push it so hard? Well I got a comment on that one (Thanks for your thought anonymous) that said that the voices of those scientists elsewhere that supported this theory were being silenced by the majority. A fair but hard claim to prove. Well it looks like the Pro-evolution side has gained some heavenly backing. Recently, the Vatican came out with a statement denouncing intelligent design. I honestly did not see this one coming, buspokesmanan from this most Holy of institutions said that people were trying to literally interpret the story of creation which should not be done. Well if the Vatican says that they don't support it, then that should really be the end of it, man if it were only so easy. One last article highlights the cross examination oMichaelal Behe, author of "Darwin's Black Box" and a staunch supporter of ID who testified in the Pennsylvania court case last week. He was cross examined by Eric Rothschild, a lawyer opposing the school board in the case. Here is the link to the Slate article comparing this cross examination with a popular Monty Python sketch. Read the article to get a better feel for the comparison, look below for just the stand alone hilarity of it.
Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. Â… When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. Â…
Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A: And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you. You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design
proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.
I can't believe that someone would get on the stand in support of a cause and so miserably fail it. This short amount of questioning (which supposedly continues like this for several pages/minutes) is so absurd I would say that the crew of Monty Python actually came up with it and somehow got Behe to say it on the stand, like a bet or something. Sadly I think that this is really what ID has to offer, nothing but a veiled attempt to include religion in our school curricula.
No comments:
Post a Comment