I’m not going to debate which one is right, which one we should believe or whatever. I have very little knowledge on this subject, all I know is from what I’ve read recently, and quite honestly, it’s beginning to piss me off. So, you’ll have to pardon me if I get a little testy, mean and/or downright dirty with what I have to say. So, the whole debate, these days, is whether or not intelligent design should be taught in a science class along with the theory of evolution.
To start off, I don’t think evolution is a theory. I think there is enough evidence out there to warrant getting rid of the “theory” part of the title. I’m not aware of any scientific (emphasis on scientific) evidence that suggests evolution is a hoax, a sham, not real, not right, whichever. Maybe it’s the liberal in me kicking and screaming to be let out, I’m not sure, but those who say evolution isn’t proven need to have their heads examined.
Intelligent design, I have no problem with it, I have no problem with the fact that people want to believe in it over evolution. I don’t even have a problem with it being taught. What I do have a problem with is teaching it in a science class, trying to pass it off as science. Intelligent design and the whole creation theory isn’t science, doesn’t belong in a science class, because, why? It belongs in a class on theology, that’s why. Anything faith based does not belong in a science class, science being something backed up by tangible evidence, evidence that is there, that can be seen, smelled, tasted, heard, whatever. Faith doesn’t require evidence. Faith requires just that, just believing in something, regardless if it makes sense or not. So, how can something that’s been used in human history to stamp down scientific ideals and thoughts be taught in a science class? This is what I find very confusing.
I also happen to find this disturbing. It’s easy for me to say that the 50%+ Americans that believe in intelligent design are absolute morons. In fact, that’s the first thing that comes to my mind. That is, after I roll my eyes and snort in disgust (this may be where I get offensive, not sure where this will lead quite yet). I don’t know if anyone’s noticed, but this country is starting to severely lag behind all other countries in scientific endeavours. For example: stem cell research. A hot topic, and I think most people believe the propaganda against stem cell research like I once did….before I learned the facts. Space exploration. While we throttle down on our plans for space, other countries are throttling up. Anyone ever notice (for those of you who attend USF) that many of the professors in the advanced sciences and mathematics are from other countries? This bothers me since it’s saying to me that we can’t produce our own homegrown scientists and mathematician, we have to import them.
So, why should a non-science (or some of you may prefer pseudo-science, I’ll play nice) be put in the same class as REAL sciences? Because, let’s face it, intelligent design is not a science, not matter what you said. It’s based purley on faith, and no scientist will make assumptions based on faith.
August 14, 2005 at 5:08 am
Evolution will always be a “theory”. That’s what it is.
The problem is that scientists and laypersons have different interpretations for the word “theory”. To the layperson, “in theory” means that the concept being discussed is untested and not much more than a guess.
However, to a scientist, a “theory” is a system of facts that combine to explain phenomena. Theories are virtually never completely thrown out; they may be refined, but even the older theories hold much truth. For example, look at Newtonian physics: while it was replaced by Einstein’s theories of relativity, the Newtonian theory still accurately predicts the behavior of particles in most situations. Einstein’s theories were a refinement of Newton’s, making it accurate in so-called “corner cases”.
The same applies to evolution. Pure Darwinistic evolution (natural selection, et cetera) has been refined and brought closer to the truth through successive theories. However, no matter how accurate the theories become, they will always be theories. The truth is that nothing is 100% proven. If it were, we would have no need for science at all. However, evolution has the weight of decades’ worth of evidence behind it.
August 14, 2005 at 10:08 am
And that’s exactly why I say intelligent design should never be taught in a science class or considered part of science. With what you said, theories are refined once new evidence is found. How can you refine something that there is no evidence for, only faith? Something that can never be questioned, because every answer goes along the lines of “God intends it to be that way.”
I think I overstepped somewhere in my initial ramblings about theories. Luckily, someone around here is a little more clear headed and can put thoughts to paper, sorta-speak.
August 18, 2005 at 3:08 am
As a follow up to Benjamin’s post, PZ Myers discusses evolution as “theory”.
August 26, 2007 at 7:08 pm
[...] antaŭe skribis pri ĉi tio. Nun mi trovis malnova artikolo pri ĝi kaj volas diri [...]