|
The problem with ID is that it isn't any more scientific than creationism. Science classes in public schools need to focus on actual science. There is ZERO evidence for an intelligent being "designing" this world, or anything in it.
Richard Dawkins wrote that relying on intelligent design to explain complex biological organisms was "a pathetic cop-out of [one's] responsibilities as a scientist." I agree. To quote Stephen Jay Gould, "science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example)." Just because we cannot yet explain everything in this world does not mean that we should assume intelligent interference.
And why assume that this "intelligence" is God? Why not aliens? Is there proof somewhere that God had a hand in creating the functioning eye but not superpowerful aliens from outerspace?
No. There isn't. And until there is, keep creationism AND ID way the hell far away from public schools.
As to the insistence that ID somehow provides a "why" that is needed:
"Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparantly purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker)."
__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"
|