The stupidity of “intelligent” design
Muttmutt writes:
In retrospect, Twitter is a really stupid medium for discussing something as complex as the nature of science, evolution and the retrograde stupidity that is “Intelligent Design” (aka creationism in a new package). So I figured it was worth my time to provide some basic groundwork for people who think that the complexity of life on Earth is somehow the result of some design rather that the work of natural (rather than supernatural) forces.
I must admit that it boggles my mind. Here we are in the 21st century and we still to have to argue with 14th century ideas.
In order to understand what is wrong with “ID” one must understand what is right about science. One must come to the realization that “ID” is a faith-based explanation of the universe and that the scientific explanations are not explanations of faith, but rather explanations based on verifiable, external evidence of natural phenomena. “ID” supporters would like to argue that science is a “faith” just like Christianity. But they are (and always will be) wrong. Here’s why.
Faith requires you to accept the explanations of things not based upon the observable, measurable phenomena of the natural world, bur rather upon the actions of actors who cannot be seen, measured or understood. “The will of the gods” if you like. The actions of these supernatural forces, be they an omniscient, omnipresent deity or the movements and alignments of the stars, or the flight of a flock of birds, are used to explain the natural world. No verifiable proof is required and to question the assertions of these explanations is anathema to people of the faith. The very word “supernatural” tells you that your explanation is based on forces outside the natural world.
Science on the other hand is not a faith, it is a process whereby we can explore and explain the nature of the world around us. Unlike faith, science invites criticism. It welcomes challenges to dogmatic explanations. Anyone who has read the history of science understands the movement from one set of explanations based upon observation to another set of explanations is at the very heart of scientific principle. Perhaps the best example is the movement from Newtonian physics to Einstein’s theories of Relativity.
Newton’s ideas, developed in the late 17th and early 18th centuries attempted to explain the physical world in terms of mathamatical models. And they held true until the early 20th century when a young patent clerk from Germany discovered that the Newtonian models were not complete and, in some cases, were wrong when applied to the atomic and sub-atomic levels. So Einstein, building upon the work of Newton, refuted some of Newton’s theories and expanded on others. Science, you see, has a way of staying on track, of growing knowledge and cutting off branches of knowledge that no longer serve as a suitable model for explaining the observable universe. Try that with and “ID” advocate sometime.
Which brings me to my real talking point: Evolution. What I love is to hear the Creationists spout off about how evolution is “just a theory.” Not only are they demonstrating their ignorance of science, but they make themselves look foolish in the process. Let’s be clear here. A theory is not a guess. It’s not a hunch. A theory is a coherent explanation of observable phenomena based on sound scientific principles of validation and falsification. It, in essence, is a fact.
The US National Acadamy of Science defines “Theory” this way:
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
Got that? Theory = Fact. So when biologists talk about the “Theory of Evolution” what they mean is “The comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature (i.e. evolution) that is supported by many facts gathered over time.”
It is for this reason and this reason alone that there is no controversy about teaching “ID” in schools. Evolution is a fact, “ID” is a faith-based fiction, a bedtime story told to asuage the fears of the unenlightened who cannot accept that life on earth evolved from simpler organisms and that it continues to evolve even today.
Filed under culture, environment : Comments (1) : Sep 7th, 2008 by muttmutt
September 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
I’m sure you LOVE to read this kind of news:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html