Thursday, August 11, 2005
I find the argument' between creationism/intelligent design and evolution to be somewhat ridiculous. Namely because intelligent design is a philosophical debate where as evolution is a scientific debate. I just don't understand how the two mix, and to be quite frank, I think the United States is heading head first in to the Dark Ages version 2 if they believe that intelligent design has any place in a science classroom.
What really irks my ire however, is those that try to argue that science is itself some sort of religion. This just doesn't float. I don't mean to be crass, but the bible (or any other religious book for that matter) is not truth as I understand it. It is assumption, based on a lack of understanding, and essentially an early form of thought control. Religion had its place, and now the times have changed and it should be relegated to the dustbin of history. Of course this is only opinion. People are free to believe what they want, be it an almighty Christian God, a universe based on a turtle, a snake, and some milk, or hyper-intelligent mice and singing dolphins. Science, on the other hand, proposes theories, which are tested and modified if required. There is no book of truth in science, based solely on ignorant speculation. Evolution is what it is, a proven scientific phenomenon. Are intelligent design proponents going to teach their poor children that some higher power, for some unknown reason, mutates bacteria so they become resistant to antibiotics and complicate all of our lives??? Wouldn't any rational human being find this to be not only ludicrous, but unnecessarily over complicated based on the available evidence?
At the end of the day, though, everything comes down to belief. Can have 100% proof that anything is real? Can you be 100% sure that what you're reading is actually here, and that I wrote it? Put another way, how can you be 100% sure that this post is actually here and not a figment of your imagination?
My point is that because of the undeniable possibility of uncertainty, everything ultimately comes down to belief. Some things are easy to believe for the scientifically inclined, while others are not.
Granted you can reduce any specific subject down to any level of absurdity you want.
Are you uncertain when you plug something into an electrical outlet that there is electricity flowing? Why not stick your finger in it instead and give yourself all the proof you need?
All joking aside however, I think you hit on an important point in your last sentence. If you don't understand, whether you're scientifically inclined or not, then you tend to gravitate towards belief/superstition. It surprises me how it's not obvious that what is happening today is the exact same thing as has happened for centuries. For example, before we knew the earth was round (or round enough), people generally thought it was flat and you could fall off one end if you sailed far enough. I'm sure in a few hundred years, the whole notion of my god and your god will be as laughable as a flat earth.
I think the FUD strategy of ID'ers succeeds because essentially it attacks Occam's Razor, which is essentially an axiom in the philosophy of science. Since it cannot be proven from any more fundamental constructs, ID'ers can attack it with impunity. Even then, for a theory to qualify as scientific, it must be empirically falsifiable otherwise it remains a fantasy, just like ID. However, this kind of reasoning is lost upon most people and you can pretty well drive a (theoretical) truck through that hole. Which makes me think : it'd be fun to create my own rival theory to ID and Evolution :-). Hmmm...The almighty Invisible Imperceptible Cosmic Giant Octopus theory - here I come :-) :-).
My 2c - just forget it. Do something productive. In the long run, the only that defeats irrationality is action.
I mean, the logical argument here would be: is there relatively more/stronger evidence for evolution than design? Since there is *no* evidence for design, and some for evolution...
Simit, I'm not happy for people to believe stupid things, but certainly they are free to...as long as they don't legislate my right away to believe otherwise, or benefit from my beliefs. Which is the problem right now in the States - look at how Bushco has absolutely terminated the US's competences in life/enviro science/cleantech. It's pathetic.
If you are talking about belief in God,or the relivance of religeon or religous beliefs in the year 2005,what is real and not real...It is my feeling, that there are no answeres which can be described by words, but by a consciousness or knowing which is fluid and multi-dimensional. Not all concepts or thoughts about life, or reality will be outdated with time. Ultimate Truths will always be outside of the dimesnsion of time and space. Who knows what these ulimate truths are. Some can be proven, by science, but perhaps some cannot be proven in this time dimension. Just because an Ultimate truth exists, does not mean that it will be universally accepted or recognised as so. Don't dissmiss the question "Is there a God just because you don't understand it, can't define it, can't see it. If people have believed in God for centuries, maybe those who believe, have some proof. How do we prove Love exists? We can only prove it by what we know, by it's results, by how it effects each of us. Can Love be proved to exist by Science? Why do so many people continue today to believe in God or that the Bible is real? It must be more than mere superstition or intellulatectual discussion, of historical facts, or a need for a crutch. After all, if one was going to have a crutch based on superstition, surely one would choose something which had more something which could be less open to doubt?