December 23, 2004
ID reading list
Here are some excerpts and links to some of the most thoughtful articles on ID and the attendant controversy I've found:
Michael C. Dorf, Columbia University Law School
Why It's Unconstitutional to Teach "Intelligent Design" in the Public Schools, as an Alternative to Evolution:
But given the social reality, "intelligent design" is different. It is an allegedly scientific theory that bears a striking resemblance to religious views. When the government mandates that students be taught such a theory, courts are rightly suspicious.At that point, a court should ask whether intelligent design is, in fact, a scientific theory at all. It should do so, not because of any general obligation on the part of schools to teach science correctly, but simply because if intelligent design is not science, then the inference is almost inescapable that the state is impermissibly acting for the purpose of fostering a religious viewpoint.
Mark Terry, Seattle Biology teacher
One Nation, Under the Designer:
These people have money, political sophistication, experience, patience, and a wonderful user-friendly website.15 Their carefully orchestrated campaign is designed to leave the science establishment looking close-minded, as if it is attempting to hide some dirty linen. How likely is it, after all, that the public will consult the current scientific literature or contact major scientific organizations, which would inform them that evolution is alive and well - indeed, central to virtually all biology and medicine - and not in any crisis?
Media Matters for America
Religious conservatives tout "intelligent design" as a "secular," "scientific" alternative to evolution:
Robertson declared his support of "intelligent design" on the December 15 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club. After referring to the ACLU and the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State as "crazies" and "extremists on the left who want to strip all vestige of religion from our national life," Robertson said: "There is no way to understand the universe unless we understand something about the fact that it could be 'intelligent design.'"
The Skeptic's Dictionary (also summarizes Dembski and Behe debunkings)
Intelligent Design:
ID isn't a scientific theory and it isn't an alternative to natural selection or any other scientific theory. The universe would appear the same to us whether it was designed by God or not. Empirical theories are about how the world appears to us and have no business positing why the world appears this way, or that it is probably designed because of how unlikely it is that this or that happened by chance. That is the business of metaphysics. ID is not a scientific theory, but a metaphysical theory.
posted by scott pilutik at December 23, 2004 09:39 AM
digg |
del.icio.us |
reddit
permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://realitybasedcommunity.net/mt-tb.cgi/31