Intelligent Design Op/Ed: "One Side Can be Wrong"

[Emu]

Intelligent design is not ... a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for "both theories" would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

So, why are we so sure that intelligent design is not a real scientific theory, worthy of "both sides" treatment? Isn't that just our personal opinion? It is an opinion shared by the vast majority of professional biologists, but of course science does not proceed by majority vote among scientists. Why isn't creationism (or its incarnation as intelligent design) just another scientific controversy, as worthy of scientific debate as the dozen essay topics we listed above? Here's why. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1559743,00.html)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1559743,00.html

[WICKED]

I am 17 years old. Two years ago, I took a biology class and loved it so much that I made the decision that I would give up any possibility of a nice paycheck in order to one day teach the subject myself. The subject, as you may remember, is BIOLOGY. Not RELIGION. BIOLOGY. And in my BIOLOGY classroom, there is no place for a RELIGION lesson. We will have too much cytoplasm and punctuated equilibrium to discuss, and thus, sadly, I doubt we will have any fairy-tale time.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I am 17 years old.

Okay, I apologize for picking on you in the other threads.

[Emu]

I am 17 years old. Two years ago, I took a biology class and loved it so much that I made the decision that I would give up any possibility of a nice paycheck in order to one day teach the subject myself. The subject, as you may remember, is BIOLOGY. Not RELIGION. BIOLOGY. And in my BIOLOGY classroom, there is no place for a RELIGION lesson. We will have too much cytoplasm and punctuated equilibrium to discuss, and thus, sadly, I doubt we will have any fairy-tale time.

I agree with your point, but it's that attitude that makes the people not listen to you. You also need to make the distinction that intelligent design is, at its core, a religious intrusion and not biology, which the ID proponents are trying to pass it off as. The problem also lies with the fact that America at large has an appallingly poor understanding of the nature of scientific investigation. They don't understand that science does not take into account the supernatural because in general people seem to hold the opinion that scientists regularly take large leaps of faith, especially with evolution, which a large amount of people believes involves a chicken hatching out of a dinosaur egg. (Or, as one 13 year old put it, "a frog coming from a rock and then turning into a human??? WHO COULD BELEVE THAT!!")

[Pub Lover]

a large amount of people believes involves a chicken hatching out of a dinosaur egg. (Or, as one 13 year old put it, "a frog coming from a rock and then turning into a human??? WHO COULD BELEVE THAT!!")
I'm constantly amazed at the supposed stupidity of the US public. They keep lowering the bar. :eek

[Immortal Goat]

Where in the blue fuck did you hear someone say that frog comment? I want to see the entire conversation to see if it is all just as asinine as that one blurb is.

[WICKED]

"Then don't speak [out]. SHOUT!"
-Henry David Thoreau,
The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail

I do my very best to live by these words. An oppinion without a voice is not an oppinion. And, sometimes, defiance is the only way.

[Lil' Johnny]

You fools, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created all that we see and feel, and all scientific evidence that points towards evolution was put in place by Him to fool the unworthy. >:

[Sethomas]

I think that shouting is only justified if you have something original to say. Otherwise, you're just making noise.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

"Then don't speak [out]. SHOUT!"
-Henry David Thoreau,
The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail

I do my very best to live by these words. An oppinion without a voice is not an oppinion. And, sometimes, defiance is the only way.

Super.

[ziggytrix]

I think that shouting is only justified if you have something original to say. Otherwise, you're just making noise.

I think originality is highly overrated. After two and a half millenia of philosophy there is little fresh ground to tread, and even new issues have hauntingly familiar overtones.

[Emu]

Where in the blue fuck did you hear someone say that frog comment? I want to see the entire conversation to see if it is all just as asinine as that one blurb is.

It was on SheezyArt back in December, I think. It'd be long gone by now, I'm sure. :(