In an AP Story,
the author says, "Nearly all scientists dismiss it (the theory of
intelligent design) as a scientific theory, and critics say it’s
nothing more than religion masquerading as science."
Ironically, nearly all evolutionists creationists dismiss the theory of intelligent design evolution as a scientific theory, and critics say it’s nothing more than religion masquerading as science.
Updated…
Via Daryl, I picked up a copy of a pdf file
called wackononsense. The title page of the pdf says, ’15 Answers to
Creationist Nonsense’. So, I’m assuming that either the author of the
the document or the person who created the pdf equates creationist with
wacko. The footer says it is about 3 years old.
I have no
plans to argue the document piece by piece. There are a few things in
it though that are worth mentioning. Throughout the document is thinly
veiled reliance on the longstanding argument that the vast majority of
scientists believe in evolution because scientific evidence supports it
(to a degree) therefore, because they believe it, it must be true.
Technically, I am not a scientist and I am expected to rely on their
expertise.
The thing is, we homeschool, and yet, the vast
majority of educational experts believe we are unqualified and that our
children will receive an inferior education to the one the public
schools provide. When we started I wasn’t 100% sure but for a while now
I have believed those educational experts are wrong. Does that make me
a wacko?
In item 8, there is a graph, depicting, based on
educational level, the percentage of belief in a statement drawn from a
gallop poll. From my experience you could likely substitute the
statement on the graph with, "A person with a high school education
could educate their own child(ren)." and the graph would show similar
results in the educational levels.
"we are
teaching them the core skills required to be self sufficient adults,
and we are supporting their individual interests in order to maximize
the happiness of their childhoods, and maybe lead them to careers that
will maximize their happiness as adults. How that works out will be up
to them, not me." – Chris
Most of the high
school graduates that I graduated with had more than enough knowledge
to teach their children core skills. Even though the O’Donnells likely
use entirely different curriculum than what we do, it doesn’t matter.
We are both working toward the same end. The most important part of a
home education toward self sufficient adults is not a degree in this or
that. Nor is the right curriculum, the right teaching aids or the right
field trips. It is having parents who are self sufficient adults.
I think my point here is that higher education does not necessarily
mean better judgement. Unfortunately, it can lead to narrowmindedness.
The real gem in the article is a parenthetical question posed in the
conclusion of the article, "How does one disprove the existence of
omnipotent intelligences?" I would be surprised if Charles Darwin
hadn’t struggled with that very question 146 years ago. You see, it is
something that science can’t do.
The crux of the problem is
that correlation does not equal causation. By advancing the theory of
‘natural selection’, Charles Darwin moved his work from correlation to
causation. Whatever scientific evidence exists or is pursued, it cannot
prove or disprove causation because it cannot determine omnipotent
intelligences role in that evidence (eg. How do you keep omnipotent
intelligences out of the labratory?). That role might include things
like altering some of the laws of nature which science uses to
determine the age of evidence. I’m not advancing that that has
happened, but I would not rely on it not having happened.
The
article also mentions (the theory of) "intelligent design" (TID). So
far in this article, I have not really mentioned Daryl. I had never
heard of TID until I followed a link from his blog. Daryl is a chemist
and does not agree that TID is science. And based on my understanding
of the research they are doing for TID, I agree with him. What I
described above applies to the research TID is doing just as it does to
research toward proving ‘natural selection’. Honestly, I was
disappointed with the type of research TID is doing. To me, the logical
area for research of TID would be intelligence (at work) and the
history architecture, engineering, art, writing, etc. (i.e. things
known to be the result of intelligent design) to establish a baseline
of data before moving to biology, chemistry and physics because science
is about comparing known data to unknown data.
In either
case, causation is not a matter of science (what one can prove to be
true), it is a matter of religion (what one believes to be true). The
introduction of the wackon nonsense article suggests its purpose is to
assist in removing religion from science. Given recent news stories
including the story quoted at the beginning of this article and my
illustration of expert opinion of homeschooling, I would say that this
method is unlikely to work to that end.
What I would suggest
to evolutionists as being something worth trying is to withdraw from
interfering with religion. Based on the author’s statement regarding
the public imagination, you are likely wasting your time anyway.
Perhaps, then, religion will withdraw from interfering with you.
Recent Comments