Wednesday, September 28, 2005
This Post Has No Design Behind It
As people in court claim there is no merit to Intelligent Design, I would like to inform my readers that since we cannot determine whether or not there is intelligence behind anything, you cannot determine that I am actually writing this. This could actually be random bits on a computer which just happen to be intelligble information.
I would like to thank ID opponents for making me aware of this. We can't even debate design, so don't bother leaving any comments. Unless of course your comments are randomly generated.
I wonder if they actually understand the inherent contradiction in their position. My guess is they do not.
As people in court claim there is no merit to Intelligent Design, I would like to inform my readers that since we cannot determine whether or not there is intelligence behind anything, you cannot determine that I am actually writing this. This could actually be random bits on a computer which just happen to be intelligble information.
I would like to thank ID opponents for making me aware of this. We can't even debate design, so don't bother leaving any comments. Unless of course your comments are randomly generated.
I wonder if they actually understand the inherent contradiction in their position. My guess is they do not.
Comments:
<< Home
If you are going to make some joke about how I'm stupid or this blog isn't intelligent, I wanted to beat you to the punch.
I have no problem with intelligent design being taught, but you simply can't make a legitimate argument to place the idea in a science class. The reason for that has nothing to do with intelligent designs veracity or potential veracity. It's simply because science uses a very particular method for developing a theory. It starts off as a postulate, goes to a hypothesis, then a theory, then a law. Evolution is a theory, not a law even by scientific standards, and any science teacher who doesn't point that out is not doing his/her job. However, Intelligent design has not gone through the process of postulate, hypothesis, theory, law. It has not gone through the scientific method of repeatable experimentation.
It's why even though something like the political science field uses the term "science" to describe itself, most scientists don't believe it is a true science because it involves too many unrepeatable experiments, or no experiments at all.
Just as you would not teach civics in a bio class, intelligent design doesn't belong in one either. If it was taught in an appropriate setting, I wouldn't have a problem with it, even in a public school.
Hwang
It's why even though something like the political science field uses the term "science" to describe itself, most scientists don't believe it is a true science because it involves too many unrepeatable experiments, or no experiments at all.
Just as you would not teach civics in a bio class, intelligent design doesn't belong in one either. If it was taught in an appropriate setting, I wouldn't have a problem with it, even in a public school.
Hwang
# posted by 
: 11:17 AM
: 11:17 AM
Many in the ID community would say they aren't ready to be taught yet themselves, so they would agree with you on that point. Plus, they don't trust the teachers to teach it accurately.
It would be OK to mention it. Recognizing what is and is not design is a question that is cross-discipline. Science, philosophy, math are all brought to bear.
It would be OK to mention it. Recognizing what is and is not design is a question that is cross-discipline. Science, philosophy, math are all brought to bear.
Would you mind, then, a mandate requiring evolution to be taught in all sunday schools? You know, for the sake of "cross discipline."
Hwang
Post a Comment
Hwang
# posted by : 7:39 PM
: 7:39 PM << Home
