Big Bang?

[David Casseres]

ID specifically claims that standard evolutionary theory cannot
adequately explain all sorts of (usually unspecified) examples of
"irreducible complexity" in the structure of living things. 
Repeatedly, biologists having patiently explained away the few
examples that are actually specified, such as the vertebrate eye.  And
repeatedly, ID advocates have shifted to other, equally spurious
examples.  ID is absolutely opposed to scientific reasoning.  I don't
know if I'd call that "keeping people stupid," but I do call it
keeping people ignorant.

On 10/5/05, jbor at bigpond.com <jbor at bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 05/10/2005, at 8:57 PM, Otto wrote:
>
> > But nobody has said something like that.
>
> It's pretty much that binary opposition exactly which is coming through
> from the more dogmatic atheists.
>
> > Nobody ever claimed here that "science is truth," which of course
> > would be nonsense. Actually the Big Bang-theory is the most likely
> > explanation for the observable universe, not more, not less. It's the
> > data telling us that, but we know that our image might change if/when
> > we get better data.
> >
> > What is rejected is the claim that a non-scientific but religious way
> > of thinking like intelligent design makes, that it scientifically can
> > tell something about the origin of the universe. Therefor it isn't
> > intolerance but absolutely necessary to refuse ID (= an attempt to
> > keep people stupid). They simply have no data, only their belief.
>
>  From what little I've looked at, and it hasn't emerged as an issue in
> this country so I haven't really been following the uproar over it, but
> Intelligent Design isn't contesting the theories of evolution or
> quantum physics or the expanding universe, or suggesting that these
> things should be removed from the science curriculum. Is it? If it's
> correct that these scientific theories and the concepts and methods
> associated with the discipline will still be taught, then the claim
> that ID is "an attempt to keep people stupid" is a straw man.
>
> As I understand it, and I could be wrong, the only difference is that
> ID proposes "God" as a first cause, whereas traditional science either
> can't or won't address that (pretty momentous) issue of a first cause.
> Not that there's anything wrong with that; agnosticism is a
> refreshingly honest and healthy stance to adopt in the circumstances.
>
> I agree that proposing the theories of biological evolution or
> astrophysics as proof of the existence of "God" is unscientific. I'd
> also argue that proposing these theories as proof of the non-existence
> of god/s is equally unscientific. And that's leaving aside the issues
> of tolerance of and respect for people's beliefs, which I think are an
> enormously important aspect of this debate.
>
> best
>
> >>> Wasn't it you who had put up the binary opposition of science and
> >>> belief in this discussion?
> >>
> >> Not at all. In fact, it's precisely that binary opposition which I've
> >> been challenging: i.e. the "science is truth and light and all must
> >> kneel at its altar" vs "belief in god/s is primitive and idiotic and
> >> believers are intellectually inferior" argument. It's about as
> >> monstrous a sermon, and as far removed from the schema of Pynchon's
> >> work, as could possibly be imagined.
>
>