© 2005, Yirmeyahu Ben-David
 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
The argument between Creationists and Darwinists doesn't deserve to be described either as debate or science.
For thousands of years, science stood for presenting compelling logic in a free market of ideas. Suddenly, science is taking a left turn to stand for closing that market and silencing competing ideas.
The other side of the coin is no less flawed. Consistency of the physical laws governing our universe aught to inform us that the origins of the universe necessarily derive from an orderly origin, not magic based on accounts in a Bible that prohibits magic and written in a language that most Creationists can't even read.
The idea of Intelligent Design has been fatally hobbled by a sabotaged definition. Sensing the intrinsic fatal flaw, several media giants (e.g. New York Times, 2005.05.06) have jumped on a bandwagon to insist that Intelligent Design "posits that life's complexity cannot be explained without a supernatural creator." The "high profile confrontational" shows in Kansas, Pennsylvania and other states that are divided over this diversion are irrelevant. Who can scientifically exclude an Intelligent Prime Cause as the origin and ultimate empowerment of the natural laws of evolution?
Scientists know that life's complexity can most certainly be explained without a "supernatural creator." What cannot be explained, of course, and what evolution scientists carefully avoid claiming, is that evolution can explain the origin of life or the origin of the universe. It cannot. Yet, out of ignorance, The Washington Post (2005.05.06) misrepresents this as "a question that the scientific establishment considers settled." Then The Washington Post misrepresents the chemical and biological elements of living organisms as "the chemical and biological origins of life." Madcapping it all off, The Washington Post misrepresents that "the scientific establishment considers the evidence" of the former as "beyond dispute."
Newspapers should hire a qualified scientific specialist to write a correct article, perhaps slowing the erosion of public confidence in the press. Physical characteristics of living organisms and the life that empowers them are very different concepts. There would surely be a less controversy in such case. Much of the controversy derives from misstating both sides of the question, often diverting readers to ad hominems. Further, the definition of Intelligent Design has been sabotaged, changing the goalpost from evolution being required to explain the origin of life and the universe to merely having to explain "life's complexity," a game change guaranteed to ensure that advocates of Intelligent Design have no chance of prevailing. That's spin, not logic — and, therefore, not science.
The term "supernatural" is similarly intrinsically fatally flawed. By definition, supernatural contradicts natural, excluding a scientific explanation. Unlike "Creationism" and "Intelligent Design" as traditionally defined, Intelligent Causation posits that neither the origin of life nor the origin of the universe can be explained without an Intelligent Prime Force (i.e. Intelligent Creator) empowering the natural laws. Intelligent Causation implies that the Intelligent Prime Force operates exclusively within the natural laws thereby caused and empowered, not supernaturally. The whole notion of supernatural interference is a product of Medieval-mentality interpretations of the Bible, not the Bible itself. Christians, Jews and Muslims alike will have to choose whether they believe the Bible teaches about an Intelligent Creator or an oxymoronic supernatural magician extension of Egyptian, Greek and Roman gods.
On the other hand, "naturalism" is no less fatally flawed, excluding logic and thinking outside of the known "natural explanations" box (Los Angeles Times, 2005.05.06). Which scientist is willing to stand up and declare that he or she knows all of the "natural explanations" from which science may logically — oops, logic is excluded since it isn't a "natural explanation," — make that "conjure" science in the future?
If science has evolved (!) into an anti-religiously-held belief too spin-enfeebled to confront Intelligent Causation in the classroom then "scientists" have lost their right to call their imposed spin "science."
Eleventh Dimension Theory does no more than push the need to explain the ultimate origin of life and the universe back another step. Now, instead, advocates of the Eleventh Dimension Theory have to explain the ultimate origin of a highly speculative, brainless, "membrane." Where did that come from? Scientifically defend that it's a brainless membrane. Something more scientific than "poof, it's just there because we speculate it" please.
Until now, America has symbolized the free market of ideas. That's in danger of being extinguished. Debate, in a spirit of tolerance, is not only healthy; it's essential to science. Not even the "Flat Earth" theory is a danger to science in the classroom. Suppression and imposition disguised as "approved science" is the danger.
 |
|
 |