Tuesday, June 28, 2005
George Will on ID
OK, I know I said I was on vacation, but I saw this today and had to post.
George Will has a great review of the evolution/creation/ID debate in this week's Newsweek. Maybe the most important comment is his take on the place of Intelligent Design in school curriculums:
Categories: evolution, IntelligentDesign, ID, origins ¶ 8:31 AM 1 comments
George Will has a great review of the evolution/creation/ID debate in this week's Newsweek. Maybe the most important comment is his take on the place of Intelligent Design in school curriculums:
The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum.I think it is a mistake to focus so much energy refuting evolution. If there are truly flaws in it, science will eventually uncover them. As I stated in an earlier post in this blog, exactly how God brought this universe into existence is not as important as the fact that he did and winning others to Christ ought to be our focus.
Categories: evolution, IntelligentDesign, ID, origins ¶ 8:31 AM 1 comments
Comments:
<< Home
The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable...
This soundly misses the point. This 'unfalsifiability' is the nature of worldview claims. Evolution and ID are both the same way. Nothing about evolution is repeatable and lab-friendly, the same way as it is with ID. These are both philosophical tenets. The problem is that the philosophy of materialistic naturalism is masquerading as science under the cover and name of 'evolution'.
If there are truly flaws in it, science will eventually uncover them.
That is precisely the point, except I'd take issue with your use of the word eventually.... It's already happening. It's what Jay Richards and Michael Behe are spending their lives on, to give two quick examples.
Doug Tennapel has more: http://www.tennapel.com/blog/TheOneWayDoorofElitism.shtml
Post a Comment
This soundly misses the point. This 'unfalsifiability' is the nature of worldview claims. Evolution and ID are both the same way. Nothing about evolution is repeatable and lab-friendly, the same way as it is with ID. These are both philosophical tenets. The problem is that the philosophy of materialistic naturalism is masquerading as science under the cover and name of 'evolution'.
If there are truly flaws in it, science will eventually uncover them.
That is precisely the point, except I'd take issue with your use of the word eventually.... It's already happening. It's what Jay Richards and Michael Behe are spending their lives on, to give two quick examples.
Doug Tennapel has more: http://www.tennapel.com/blog/TheOneWayDoorofElitism.shtml
<< Home
