Intelligent Design
Today's blog is so clever, and so well-designed and thought-out, that it could only have been bought to you by God.
Or so goes the "theory" proposed by those behind Intelligent Design.
Their theory states that as life on Earth is so complex, it could not have evolved by chance and therefore must have been created by a higher entity. They stop just short of saying God, but that's just so that people will take them seriously. Douglas Adams proved this best (paraphrased below from the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy):
God: Without blind faith, I am nothing.
Man: Ah, but the babel fish is far too useful to have evolved by chance. Ergo, you created it and have thus proved your existance.
God: Bugger. Didn't think of that.
God vanishes in a puff of logic.
Of course, they are of course missing three rather vital points. And as usual, I will point them out for you:
1 - Something is more likely to be complex if it evolves. A design would be more ordered and structured.
2 - What fool left the appendix in? How did that get past beta testing and quality assurance?
3 - The ultimate point: If it is so complex that it had to be designed by an supremely intelligent entity, ergo that intelligent entity must be more complex than man. So who designed the intelligent entity itself? A more intelligent entity? How far back does this go? On the evidence provided, each entity cannot design something more complex or intelligent than itself, so there must be an infinite line of intelligent entities stretching back, each designing life slightly less complex and clever than itself. What this is supposed to achieve I don't know. Man will surely continue the trend, by creating life in laboratories that will be less clever than itself. It's nice to know we are currently at the bottom of the cleverness-chain, but should be a rung up in the next fifty years or so.
The slightly worrying thing is that these people have sent literature to all the heads of science at high schools across the country. So far, 59 of these have responded in a positive fashion, saying they would be interested in receiving further literature on the subject and teaching it as an alternative theory.
This is crazy. I can understand this subject being debated in Religious Education lessons, but it has absolutely no place in the laboratory. Science should stick to science and not get involved in religion. Evolution has been proven by scientific research since Darwin discovered it, and this is what must be taught. Teaching Creationism (sorry, Intelligent Design) as an alternative theory is no good. It's like teaching that things fall to the ground because God wants it that way. or that electricity is actually generated by fairies.
There was a court case I dimly remember in the US regarding parts of the bible belt, where they still taught Creationism as the accepted means of explaining the origins of life. I don't recall the outcome, unfortunately, and don't have time to look it up. I'm reasonably certain that common sense won the way, though.
Let's have science stick to facts, shall we? The national curriculum has it's faults, but at least it's got the seperations right.
Teachers should not deviate too far from it.
Or so goes the "theory" proposed by those behind Intelligent Design.
Their theory states that as life on Earth is so complex, it could not have evolved by chance and therefore must have been created by a higher entity. They stop just short of saying God, but that's just so that people will take them seriously. Douglas Adams proved this best (paraphrased below from the Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy):
God: Without blind faith, I am nothing.
Man: Ah, but the babel fish is far too useful to have evolved by chance. Ergo, you created it and have thus proved your existance.
God: Bugger. Didn't think of that.
God vanishes in a puff of logic.
Of course, they are of course missing three rather vital points. And as usual, I will point them out for you:
1 - Something is more likely to be complex if it evolves. A design would be more ordered and structured.
2 - What fool left the appendix in? How did that get past beta testing and quality assurance?
3 - The ultimate point: If it is so complex that it had to be designed by an supremely intelligent entity, ergo that intelligent entity must be more complex than man. So who designed the intelligent entity itself? A more intelligent entity? How far back does this go? On the evidence provided, each entity cannot design something more complex or intelligent than itself, so there must be an infinite line of intelligent entities stretching back, each designing life slightly less complex and clever than itself. What this is supposed to achieve I don't know. Man will surely continue the trend, by creating life in laboratories that will be less clever than itself. It's nice to know we are currently at the bottom of the cleverness-chain, but should be a rung up in the next fifty years or so.
The slightly worrying thing is that these people have sent literature to all the heads of science at high schools across the country. So far, 59 of these have responded in a positive fashion, saying they would be interested in receiving further literature on the subject and teaching it as an alternative theory.
This is crazy. I can understand this subject being debated in Religious Education lessons, but it has absolutely no place in the laboratory. Science should stick to science and not get involved in religion. Evolution has been proven by scientific research since Darwin discovered it, and this is what must be taught. Teaching Creationism (sorry, Intelligent Design) as an alternative theory is no good. It's like teaching that things fall to the ground because God wants it that way. or that electricity is actually generated by fairies.
There was a court case I dimly remember in the US regarding parts of the bible belt, where they still taught Creationism as the accepted means of explaining the origins of life. I don't recall the outcome, unfortunately, and don't have time to look it up. I'm reasonably certain that common sense won the way, though.
Let's have science stick to facts, shall we? The national curriculum has it's faults, but at least it's got the seperations right.
Teachers should not deviate too far from it.
posted by Nej at
1:13 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home