Interesting take on the debate about "Intelligent Design" in schools

[sarahmichigan]

http://www.slate.com/id/2127052/

excerpts:

Four months ago, when evolution and "intelligent design" (ID) squared off in Kansas, I defended ID as a more evolved version of creationism. ID posits that complex systems in nature must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The crucial step forward is ID's concession that "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building"—not scriptural authority—define science. Having acknowledged that standard, advocates of ID must now demonstrate how hypotheses based on it can be tested by experiment or observation. Otherwise, ID isn't science.

This week, ID is on trial again in Pennsylvania. And so far, its proponents aren't taking the experimental test they accepted in Kansas. They're ducking it.

...

Under the [Penn.] policy, "Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design." Notice the "of" before "other theories." The policy doesn't tell teachers to discuss gaps and problems in ID. It tells them to discuss gaps and problems in Darwinism—and then to discuss ID as an alternative "theory." The board's brief makes clear that the policy's aim is "informing students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution, including the fact that there are alternative scientific theories."

...

So here's what ID proponents are offering to teach your kids: They won't say how ID works. They won't say how it can be tested, apart from testing Darwinism and inferring that the alternative is ID. They won't concede it has to be falsifiable. All they'll say is that Darwinism hasn't explained some things. But that's what the first half of the Dover policy says already. So there's no need for the second half—the part that mentions ID.

(emphasis added by me)

Comments

[dare2grok.livejournal.com]

Sarah, you're clear as crystal. Those of us who know what science is about either stick with or abandon parts of theories or whole theories depending on how well they do on the two main functions of good scientific theory: explain what is observed in the least complicated manner and predict things about future observations. This includes Darwinism; it will be modified or wholly thrown out as science progresses, and we will accept such outcomes if justified.

I think this is what separates out the ID supporters. I have never heard one so much as whisper that it would be acceptable to reject the idea if it's not provably good science. You can't be a person of science if you aren't humble enough to accept that ideas can possibly be proven wrong, or at least not supportable, and rejected. To be otherwise is to be a person of superstition and mumbo-jumbo.

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

There's a subtle difference between contrary theory and ID. ID doesn't want the chance to prove itself a valid science, it simply wants equal time. That is necessarily the case because science does not allow you to assign a hypothesis to explain the absence of proof.

for your pleasure
http://www.boners.com/grub/793920.html

[dare2grok.livejournal.com]

Please explain more fully "ID doesn't want the chance to prove itself a valid science, it simply wants equal time" and "science does not allow you to assign a hypothesis to explain the absence of proof."

I don't want to respond, having the wrong ideas about what you are saying.

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

The first step in becoming a science is the creation of the null hypothesis: Nothing happened, there is no effect. Thus the null hypothesis for ID is that it and god don't exist. Now you have to disprove that nothing happened. ID cannot stand that kind of test because there is nothing to back it up. Nor are they willing to start from the premise that god doesn't exist.

There isn't a single peer reviewed paper anywhere subjecting ID to scientific inquiry.

What ID tries to do is find points of conjecture in Evolution and say, "See, that didn't work, so it must be intellegent design". Thus, ID and the theory that the universe was farted out of Brahma's ass are both equally valid if you assign them as being the alternative explanation. Nothing gets the default position, it be validated by the pronderence of the data. The Null condition is not "god did it" but simply "we don't know". Absense of proof is not proof of absense.

The ID people need to be ignored. Recognizing them as a serious proposition is the first step to granting them legitimacy.

[dare2grok.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I more fully understand now.

You make good points which highlight the objectivity of science and why, so far, metaphysics just ain't science. Amen, friend.