 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
Neither the theory of evolution, nor evolutionary scientists nor the Bible is the problem. Evolutionists who have a simplistic grasp of evolutionary science and Creationists who have a simplistic grasp of the Bible are evil-twin problems who wrongly frame this issue in polarized 'straw men.'
Contrary to The Times' editors and any proponents of "Intelligent Design" to whom it may apply, Intelligent Design is NOT as simplistically described by The Times (The Crafty Attacks on Evolution, 2005.01.23). Intelligent Design does NOT conflict with the theory of evolution or any other science. Rather, Intelligent Design attempts to explain what scientists make no attempt whatsoever to explain: the ultimate origin and purpose of the universe and life -- by evolution if that theory is as scientifically correct as it seems. I don't know that the theory of evolution explains all of the process and no one else knows they don't. That's why it's a theory. It's not different in that respect to the theory of quantum physics or relativity. To argue that no answer at all is more "scientific" is not only illogical; it's laughable.
Contrary to the claim of The Times editorial, the scientists whom I've read either make no claim about the origins of life whatsoever, or, more carefully, explicitly repudiate any claim of explaining the origins of life. In its apparent failure to consult scientists, The Times views the scientists' position as "denigrat[ing] evolution as a theory, not a fact." Scientific consensus also readily acknowledges that there is no necessary contradiction between the theory of evolution, or any other scientific theory, and an Intelligent Designer as a Prime Originating Force. The alternative is no answer at all, which is where science, including the theory of evolution, ends.
You criticize a sticker in a textbook with 'straw man' exaggerations because you don't like how it sounds, even though you acknowledge that it's factually correct. Yes, it would be an improvement if it included a statement that "describe[s] evolution as the dominant theory in the field and [a useful -- don't get carried away] scientific tool," but even as is, it's greatly preferable to your inaccuracies, exaggerations and conspicuous spin. You say of any approach that disputes your contra-scientific position that "they still constitute an improper effort by religious advocates to impose their own slant on the teaching of evolution." You say??? Since when is such an unfounded statement considered a scientific argument? How does your contradiction of science and fact not constitute an improper effort to impose your own, unscientific, slant on the teaching of evolution? Is it religious to require that you also stick to science and not make unscientific claims when you talk about evolution? Are only the critics of evolution required to stick to science and fact? Even if their position is religious, on what scientific basis can you state that religion is necessarily contradictory to science?
The Times resents the statement that evolution is a theory, despite that being the truth, while contradicting the scientists by wishfully insinuating it as fact. I can readily understand, and support, a constitutional ban against superimposing religious beliefs on scientific thought. However, a constitutional ban is no less justified when the unscientific belief being superimposed on scientific thought comes from a different, equally uninformed, direction. The Times' editors would do a great service by either quoting the leading scientists who have broken from previous mainstream scientific consensus on evolution, if they exist, or printing a correction. The concept of intelligent design is, by definition, necessarily compatible with science — and that seems far more than can be said for The Times or the federal judge in Georgia.
Let it be a scientific argument. But let that apply to both sides equally. In that case, contrary to The Times, science offers no answer whatsoever to the origins of life or the universe. But a proof by disproof confirms, logically and scientifically, that there is an origin:
There is no origin to the universe.
Physics requires that every effect have a cause.
Therefore, the universe cannot exist.
However, the universe does exist.
Q.E.D. (reductio ad absurdum)
Therefore, scientifically, there is an origin to discover and discuss. What that origin is and how to go about examining and analyzing it is not yet solved. That's true of many scientific unknowns. Asking questions and searching for answers is the essence of science, not excluding a path of inquiry because someone finds it philosophically objectionable. Being unsolved scientifically neither excludes the issue of origin from scientific discussion nor relegates the question to a comparative religion class. Further, Intelligent Design is, so far, the most sensible direction of inquiry. Preferring no answer at all isn't scientific; it's an Ostrich Syndrome.
 |
|
 |