Tweet
So, I went home to visit some friends and my mom for the past week. Now, usually when I spend time with my mom, we end up arguing about something, and this time was no exception - abortion, Christianity, logic/reasoning, alcohol, and intelligent design/evolution and it's place in schools.
The following are some of the points I made, and I'd be interested in seeing what the IDers/creationists (BK, etc.) on here think.
Now, obviously I can't unequivocally state that ID didn't happen. You can't prove a negative, right? I'm also OK with the notion that the Big Bang and evolution are the result of an Intelligent Designer. What I'm not OK with, is someone who believes in ID trying to tell me that there is little credible evidence for evolution, and that many scientists don't even believe it anymore. That argument basically goes like this:
1)You can't 100% prove evolution.
2)In fact, you can't even explain everything that evolution implies.
3)This means there are major problems with evolutionary theory.
4)Evolutionary theory is wrong.
5)Therefore, Intelligent Design is the correct theory.
6)Many scientists are coming out in support of ID.
Now, that's a silly argument. Not even the most committed evolutionary biologist would say that there are no holes in evolutionary theory - or, for that matter, that evolution IS a theory and that hypothetically a better theory will be found someday.
Next, even if points 1-4 above were true, that doesn't mean that point 5 logically follows. Duh.
Finally, what scientists are coming out in favor of ID? Creationists don't usually get to that, because they don't usually do minor things like examine the credentials of the people publishing bull****. Case in point, my mom gave me a book to read that she said was written by someone who studied all of the scientific facts and concluded that intelligent design occured. OK, fine. I read part of the book (although I do intend to finish it), and concluded two things: 1)the author is a journalist, not someone we should expect to understand complex biology. 2)His arguments were either philosophical arguments (the clockmaker argument, for example), or simply attacks on evolution rather than affirmitive evidence for ID. The notion that that guy was qualified to have a credible opinion is akin to the notion that I can read a bunch of medical books and go tell my doctor that he paid too much for his medical degree.
Moving on, though, there are undoubtedly some scientists out there with credible credentials in a field related to evolution who don't think evolution happened. But so what? That's not what the majority of the peers think, and that's not what the majority of peer-reviewed literature says. Yes, lot's of people thinking something doesn't make what they think right, but in this case, I think I'm going to go with what most scientists say, simply because I'm not qualified to have a credible opinion myself.
The next argument that gets put up, usually, at this point, goes something like this: "Well, science has believed different things over time, so who says that they are right now and won't change their minds tomorrow?" Answer: "Nothing at all." The point, though, is that you also won't ever find a scientist who is as rabidly attached to the theory of evolution as IDers are to creationist theory. Science is just going to have to trump faith when we're talking about things like molecular biology.
At this point, it's usually amusing to ask your creationist opponent to cite some evidence for their position. They will invariably come out with three things only:
1)The Bible/God
2)Philosophical arguments
3)Arguments against evolution but not for creation
If your opponent is even mildly intellectually honest - which is in many cases not true - you can usually pin them into a corner here and get them to admit that there is no affirmitive scientific evidence for creationist theory.
And yet, even given that, they will still argue that ID should be taught in schools, specifically in science courses. "Truth is truth", they'll tell you, "regardless of whether or not we can prove it, so shouldn't we teach truth in school?" Ah yes, the classic strawman. No, sorry, I don't think we should teach truth in school
But seriously, folks, let's stipulate for a moment that ID is, in fact, truth. It seems to me, though, that if you can't present scientific evidence for truth, then you probably shouldn't teach it in science class. Philosophy/religion classes, sure, but teaching students to use the scientific method, be skeptical, use their critical thinking skills, and then teaching them in the same class that Intelligent Design is "The Truth" even though you can't apply any aspect of science to it is absolutely horrible. All that does is to teach kids that if they can't prove something, just take it on faith - after all, proof isn't important. Of course, that might also make them question why they have to show their work in science and math classes - after all, if SOMETIMES it doesn't matter how you reach a conclusion, proof be damned, then when DOES it matter?
And you wonder why science standards in this country are going down. I'm not saying this is the cause of all of it, but I bet if we took Intelligent Design out of science classes, and don't even mention it as a theory, much less a fact, then over the long-term, we would see an increase in our students' proficiency in science.
Anyway, here's my two-fold challenge to proponents of Intelligent Design:
1)Come up with a reasonable argument that will convince me we should teach ID in science courses.
2)Show me SCIENTIFIC evidence for ID.
The following are some of the points I made, and I'd be interested in seeing what the IDers/creationists (BK, etc.) on here think.
Now, obviously I can't unequivocally state that ID didn't happen. You can't prove a negative, right? I'm also OK with the notion that the Big Bang and evolution are the result of an Intelligent Designer. What I'm not OK with, is someone who believes in ID trying to tell me that there is little credible evidence for evolution, and that many scientists don't even believe it anymore. That argument basically goes like this:
1)You can't 100% prove evolution.
2)In fact, you can't even explain everything that evolution implies.
3)This means there are major problems with evolutionary theory.
4)Evolutionary theory is wrong.
5)Therefore, Intelligent Design is the correct theory.
6)Many scientists are coming out in support of ID.
Now, that's a silly argument. Not even the most committed evolutionary biologist would say that there are no holes in evolutionary theory - or, for that matter, that evolution IS a theory and that hypothetically a better theory will be found someday.
Next, even if points 1-4 above were true, that doesn't mean that point 5 logically follows. Duh.
Finally, what scientists are coming out in favor of ID? Creationists don't usually get to that, because they don't usually do minor things like examine the credentials of the people publishing bull****. Case in point, my mom gave me a book to read that she said was written by someone who studied all of the scientific facts and concluded that intelligent design occured. OK, fine. I read part of the book (although I do intend to finish it), and concluded two things: 1)the author is a journalist, not someone we should expect to understand complex biology. 2)His arguments were either philosophical arguments (the clockmaker argument, for example), or simply attacks on evolution rather than affirmitive evidence for ID. The notion that that guy was qualified to have a credible opinion is akin to the notion that I can read a bunch of medical books and go tell my doctor that he paid too much for his medical degree.
Moving on, though, there are undoubtedly some scientists out there with credible credentials in a field related to evolution who don't think evolution happened. But so what? That's not what the majority of the peers think, and that's not what the majority of peer-reviewed literature says. Yes, lot's of people thinking something doesn't make what they think right, but in this case, I think I'm going to go with what most scientists say, simply because I'm not qualified to have a credible opinion myself.
The next argument that gets put up, usually, at this point, goes something like this: "Well, science has believed different things over time, so who says that they are right now and won't change their minds tomorrow?" Answer: "Nothing at all." The point, though, is that you also won't ever find a scientist who is as rabidly attached to the theory of evolution as IDers are to creationist theory. Science is just going to have to trump faith when we're talking about things like molecular biology.
At this point, it's usually amusing to ask your creationist opponent to cite some evidence for their position. They will invariably come out with three things only:
1)The Bible/God
2)Philosophical arguments
3)Arguments against evolution but not for creation
If your opponent is even mildly intellectually honest - which is in many cases not true - you can usually pin them into a corner here and get them to admit that there is no affirmitive scientific evidence for creationist theory.
And yet, even given that, they will still argue that ID should be taught in schools, specifically in science courses. "Truth is truth", they'll tell you, "regardless of whether or not we can prove it, so shouldn't we teach truth in school?" Ah yes, the classic strawman. No, sorry, I don't think we should teach truth in school
But seriously, folks, let's stipulate for a moment that ID is, in fact, truth. It seems to me, though, that if you can't present scientific evidence for truth, then you probably shouldn't teach it in science class. Philosophy/religion classes, sure, but teaching students to use the scientific method, be skeptical, use their critical thinking skills, and then teaching them in the same class that Intelligent Design is "The Truth" even though you can't apply any aspect of science to it is absolutely horrible. All that does is to teach kids that if they can't prove something, just take it on faith - after all, proof isn't important. Of course, that might also make them question why they have to show their work in science and math classes - after all, if SOMETIMES it doesn't matter how you reach a conclusion, proof be damned, then when DOES it matter?
And you wonder why science standards in this country are going down. I'm not saying this is the cause of all of it, but I bet if we took Intelligent Design out of science classes, and don't even mention it as a theory, much less a fact, then over the long-term, we would see an increase in our students' proficiency in science.
Anyway, here's my two-fold challenge to proponents of Intelligent Design:
1)Come up with a reasonable argument that will convince me we should teach ID in science courses.
2)Show me SCIENTIFIC evidence for ID.
Comment