Saturday, December 12, 2009

"Expelled", Darwinism, and ID.

Humans being what we are, we like absolutes in 'wrong' and 'right'. It's to bad that such absolutes are often rather misleading, even destructive.

So let's start off with my view point. I'm a 'Darwinist' in the sense that I find biological evolution from a single celled organism to be the most likely explanation for the origin of life, with the assistance of some form of intelligent intervention to be very unlikely. As previously discussed, I am an atheist as well.

Now, I'm quite willing to talk and discuss and argue with people who are interested in discussing Intelligent Design in a scientific manner. Of course, the greatest challenge to that idea that needs to be overcome is the necessity for direct physical evidence of a Designer, and to the best of my knowledge, we have none. A supposedly simpler explanation for how biological mechanisms were formed is far from direct enough. Leaving it up entirely to the evolutionary mechanisms that are in place that we know exist is simpler from the view point of not adding another agent of unknown qualities into the mix. And I have a whole slew of other arguments, that would continue to distract from the focus of this post

Scientific debate of ID is hindered by two things. First, and in my mind primarily, is the section of ID that is creationism trying to masquerade as something scientific. That approach is "and of an Intelligent Designer seems possible, why couldn't it be God! and if it's God, then look at this bible..."

They screw up the real ID scientists who find aspects of microbiology to be more easily explainable if there was some one who designed it.

That combines with the animosity between science and the church (which is ironic due to many famous scientists such as Galileo and Newton being religious, but is the church's own fault for attacking the early scientists so harshly) to create a backlash against any one who mention ID in a scientific publication or paper.

This backlash is itself unscientific. Unfortunately, humans are flawed creatures, and often in vigorous defense of an ideal, we act like those whom we originally set ourselves against. Loosing tenure for the slightest mention of researching the possibilities is not a good way to run things. Let them do research, bring up their evidence and arguments, then proceed in a proper, scientific method, using critical thinking skills, to hash it all out.

Go watch Expelled. Truly, it's not as one sides as many claim. It's flawed, and I'd love to get into that in another, very long post sometime, but all pro-ID siding that it may be taking aside, the primitive blackballing of IDers that the documentary seems to expose is not something any one who considers themselves a scientist should take part in.

1 comment:

  1. "the real ID scientists"

    Huh? You call them scientists? Why?

    Intelligent design are code words that mean supernatural magic. People who invoke magic to solve scientific problems have no right to call themselves scientists.

    "the primitive blackballing of IDers that the documentary seems to expose is not something any one who considers themselves a scientist should take part in."

    Intelligent design = magic. People who invoke magic are equal to flat-earthers, and they are often called flat-earthers because they are just as hopelessly stupid as flat-earthers.

    So would you complain if flat-earthers were ridiculed, laughed at, and discriminated against? I hope not. So why complain about the ridicule of intelligent design creationists who are, lets face it, uneducated morons.

    "I am an atheist"

    Some atheist you are. You are as much a part of the problem as the brain-dead Christian fundamentalists.