Futile

[poliphilo]

I've been on a message board where Darwinists and Creationists were slugging it out. Ouch, ouch, ouch!

Such dogmatism- on both sides.  But, as one of the posters pointed out, Darwinism is a scientific theory and Intelligent Design is a philosophical theory. They belong in different disciplines. 

It's as if one team turned up for the match in football strip and the other team in cricket whites.

Comments

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Bear in mind that those who believe in Intelligent Design view it as scientifically as those who believe in Darwinism.

Honestly, in my mind, science and religion are not mutually exclusive. I've never understood why it's so hard for people to not see that the two fit together perfectly.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The Independent Designers are wrong then. For something to be science it has to be testable and
their theory isn't.

I agree about Science and Religion. There's no reason why one shouldn't be a Theist and a Darwinian- and lots of people are. I think Darwin himself may have been. What isn't compatible with Science is the sort of religion that says "my very old book is a better guide to the physical universe than your up-to-the-minute research".

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

For something to be science it has to be testable and
their theory isn't.

I refuse to use the term "theory" in relation to Intelligent Design.

There are two meanings of the word theory. In casual lay terms, it usually means an idea or hunch. ("I have a theory that her husband is cheating on her.") But in scientific terms, a theory is an idea that has been tested repeatedly and stood up to a great deal of scrutiny.

The Intelligent Designers are trying to speak in scientific terms in order to give themselves credibility. If they want to play in the scientific arena, then they need to play by scientific rules. And scientifically speaking, ID is *not* in any way a theory.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The problem is knowing what else to call ID. "A fancy"? "A whim"? "A notion"?

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

Philosophy? Belief system? Idea?

[frsimon.livejournal.com]

You will get into some very muddy water with theoretical physics if you claim that all 'science' has to be (directly?) testable.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm out of my depth here. But presumably even the most far-fetched of theories in physics has to be backed-up with testable mathematics.

[frsimon.livejournal.com]

Ah, but mathematics needn't be *empirically* testable need it?

My basic point here is that ID is, as its proponents claim, a scientific theory. It is, however, a crap one. And unless children are to be taught fringe theories about everything in science classes, it seems arbitrary to insist they should be taught this one.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I'm inclined to think that "crap science" is a contradiction in terms.

But we're in basic agreement on the most important thing. ID- however you want to classify it- has no place in the science class.

[red-girl-42.livejournal.com]

Bear in mind that those who believe in Intelligent Design view it as scientifically as those who believe in Darwinism.

They like to *claim* that it has as much scientific evidence behind it, but it doesn't. According to the standards of science--that an idea has to be testable, and then stand up to *repeated* testing--Intelligent Design simply falls flat.

But like you, I don't see why science and religion have to be mutually exclusive. The existence of evolution in no way negates the existence of God. Nor does evolution answer all of the questions that religion tries to answer.

Many scientists, including Darwin himself, are very religious. The only thing that evolution negates is a completely literal translation of the Bible.