"Stephen E. Jones" wrote:
> Ashby's conclusion is that: "The reason for this double standard is that
> many fear the religious implications of such an investigation."
>
> Can any non-theist on this List who denies that design can be detected,
> honesty put their hand on their heart and disagree with this last point?
I am not religious. I suspect that I do not really understand the
concept. But, if others find something meaningful in the concept,
that is fine with me. It's a free country.
However, I am disturbed about two implications of "intelligent
design," one is political, the other educational.
There are some Christians in the USA who think that the USA should
become officially a Christian nation. They want to end the separation
of church and state. I think they want a nation in which everyone will
be equal except that, using the words of George Orwell, some will be
"more equal." Orwell in "Animal Farm" was writing about the Soviet
Union.
I fear that these Christians will use "intelligent design" to further
their ends. They want to say that supernatural intelligent agents,
potentially including their Christian God, are a proven scientific
fact. A scientific statement affirming the supernatural will give
their cause new prestige. They will argue that, if God is real, then
an America organized around His teachings is essential. Freedom will
then be freedom to obey God. All other rights can (and must) be
abandoned.
Of course, one can point to other groups in other religions with
similar ideas; Islamic fundamentalists are one such group. Iran
and Afghanistan are examples of states that they have created.
The problem of intelligent design in education is less important
(except that, if these Christians can introduce God into science
classes in public schools, they have introduced God into Government).
Essentially, the goal of intelligent design is to show that
supernatural beings are real. But, for students, this creates a
problem. Are there demons? Are there curses? Is AIDs a curse?
Microbiology is hard to learn. There are advantages to believing
that AIDs is a curse. Does your mother have cancer? Maybe you
should consult a witch doctor. Suppose you want to design an
airplane. Must you study aerodynamics (difficult) or is it
effective to pray with polished sincerity that your airplane will
fly safely?
From Leland Smith's "A Response to Priests of Scientific Orthodoxy"
> Obviously, the scientific community accepts the proposition that intelligent
> design can be detected. So why does it cry foul when one hunts for design
> in biological systems or in the cosmos? The answer offered by Smith is that
> "we must insist that descriptions and explanations of life and our universe
> be devised from our four senses of perception that can be tested by suitable
> rigorous means." But if that criterion does not exclude from science other
> hunts for intelligence, why should it do so in this particular case?
Hunting for God is fine with me. If someone finds one, my opinions
will matter little. But make sure the method is legitimate. The
methods used by the William Dembski's and the Dean Kenyon's are
not.
Ivar Ylvisaker
Engineer
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 18 2000 - 01:25:57 EDT