Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kutulu
ID is like science without effort. They encounter a difficulty and suddenly claim that it's too complex to understand. Where would we be now if scientists just gave up and said it's too complex?
|
Precisely. This is probably my biggest problem with ID--it promotes the line of thinking that "well, we can't explain it, it must be attributable to some all-powerful supernatural being." By taking that approach essentially encourages one to never question--if it isnt easily explained, don't bother. Besides, definitions of what's too complex change with time. 1000 years ago, gravity was too complex to explain. 100 years ago, DNA was too complex to explain. Today, to take the classic argument of ID, the eye is too complex to explain. What tomorrow? Saying that just because we can't explain something means that some supernatural being created it is at best ignorant and at worst dangerous. If no one had ever bothered to try to explore and research things that seemed unexplainable, we'd still be living in the stone age.
And then, like everyone else said, it isn't science. And shouldn't be taught as such. If you want to learn about ID, fine, that's your prerogative, but keep it out of the classroom.