(Reply to this) (Thread)

Actually, considering how poor the design of, say the human eye is, 'Intelligent Design' theory ought be blasphemous as it makes God look like an idiot.

(Can't help but think I already commented words to that effect in this entry. If so, apologies for my mistake.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"Intelligent Design" is a theory.

"Evolution" is a theory.

One problem: there's a great deal more objective evidence for Evolution than there is for Intelligent Design. Unless you find His lab book lying around somewhere, or on eBay, Intelligent Design isn't likely going to have much crucial, objective evidence.

Though, ironically, I think it *should* be taught. Why? As an excellent example of the Scientific Method, and how theories develop and/or are rejected.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Intelligent design doesn't meet the scientific definition of "theory". To be a theory in scientific terms, it has to be more than just someone's guess as to how things happened. It must have predictive power. Intelligent design does not.

Perhaps it should be used as an example of the power of the scientific method, but your idea (which I have no real trouble with) would send the religious right rioting in the streets.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

To be a theory in scientific terms, it has to be more than just someone's guess as to how things happened.



Exactly. A case study. As for the "religious right," I think only a small minority would kick up a ruckus, and if one presents the argument for ID objectively, and shows *why* there are issues with it, what are they going to do? Surrebuttal? Of what? Most will realize they'll look foolish, and as for the rest, there are tinfoil-hat wearers no matter where you look.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Idunno. My favorite image of God is the one from my (UU) church's community theater group: a 60 pound Korean woman in a 70 pound kimono, with a sarcasm streak 20,000 leagues wide.

Vorn

(Reply to this) (Thread)