Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Leaps of Faith

Russ Pulliam, in a column on the Indianapolis Star web site, weighs in on the debate over what to teach in schools. He makes some good points about the philosophy inherent in Darwinian theory. Although it is not explicit, his reference to "that kind of evolution" gets at the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution noted in my sidebar. Here are some excerpts:
The debate over intelligent design is not just an argument about how to teach science.

When scientists boldly proclaim the Darwinian theory of evolution, they go way beyond scientific expertise into matters of philosophy and theology.

That is why some Indiana Republican lawmakers are working on legislation to require equal time in the classroom for the intelligent design theory of origins along with evolutionary theory.

. . . .

Plenty of scientists have claimed rights to territory they never really conquered with the theory of evolution. They say that faith has no place in matters of science, that science has its rules of evidence and observation, and that any faith-based approach to origins will step outside those rules.

Yet these scientists have brought their own kind of faith to bear in the assumptions behind evolutionary theory. Some big leaps of faith are found in theories about mankind evolving from the animal kingdom and one species gradually changing into another. That kind of evolution can't be observed or tested in the lab.

I hope that the Indiana legislature goes the route of Minnesota, Ohio and Kansas, and mandates teaching scientific evidence that both supports and challenges macroevolutionary theory, and stays away from mandating intelligent design for now. Such a course of action is obviously good public policy, good science and should be immune from Constitutional challenge.


At November 15, 2005 4:09 PM, Blogger stewie said...

But you continue to miss that ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense - as it has not been and cannot be tested - and doesn't even make claims or predictions.


This does not a theory make.

It may be a theory in the philosophical sense, and that is its only place (if it deserves one) - in a philosophy class. Asking theological questions and not providing scientific answers IS NOT SCIENCE.

At November 16, 2005 7:34 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I enjoy comedy blogs. Keep it up! (That too.)

At November 17, 2005 7:13 PM, Anonymous S.o.S said...

Stewie said..
"But you continue to miss that ID isn't a theory in the scientific sense - as it has not been and cannot be tested - and doesn't even make claims or predictions".

But you continue to miss that the term "Intelligent Design" is of itself the claim or prediction. There has been, and continues to be, scientific tests, researches and observations done to show that "intelligence" is more than just a theory ( although in leui of the naturalist, convoluted thinking, I believe the jury is still out).


The theory of evolution followers, must continue to fill the holes in evolution, with more theories of evolution. Why isn't called the "Theories of evolution"? What a waste of valuable time and money! How many more years of theorizing must we endure? I'll take ID any day over the mind boggeling, gobbledy-gook of evolution. There's much more sensible things to waste my time on. Besides, usually the easiest way is the right way. KISS!!!


Post a Comment

<< Home