Thursday, September 01, 2005

Rising in the East, Setting in the West

Tuesday's New York Times reported disturbing statistics, most notably that 1 in 5 adult Americans thinks the sun revolves around the earth. Matt Bertrand notes this on his StumbleUpon blog. Is it any wonder that Intelligent Design won't go away?


Blogger Bilbo Bloggins said...

Loren -

You seem to have some very substantive comments related to NT criticism. You don't offer much in the way of anti-ID viewpoints. Why not actually address the arguments made by the scientists who advocate ID? Two popular pro-ID blogs you could interact with would be:


Its great to have a viewpoint about ID, but to just mock the proponents is, IMO, a bit intellectually lazy. I personally think ID should be kept as far away from the schools as possible, and that it is not science in the popular sense of the term. However, as a philosophical stance, I think it is extremely interesting. The design argument definitely has its place in philosophy and specifically philosophy of religion, and Behe has definitely made a contribution to the teleological argument. Dembski has also made a significant contribution to the debate about empirically recognizing design.

If you have substantive anti-ID arguments (not just of a political nature), I'd be interested to see them and interact with them.

Oh, and on the sun rotating around the earth, that's humorous. Though I doubt those polled had this in mind, given that there's no absolute reference point in space, in one sense it does rotate around the earth (i.e., from our inertial frame). ;-)

Blogger Loren Rosson III said...


Some things cry for mockery, and ID is one of them. It’s everywhere in politics these days, and from a scientific perspective warrants dismissal and ridicule. As a philosophical stance, I suppose it’s about as interesting as Aristotle’s unmoved mover. As for my laziness, I plead guilty, for sloth is my sin. But I’m not much a philosopher anyway. Thanks for visiting.

Blogger Bilbo Bloggins said...

I'm just interested to see what part of ID you think calls for mockery, unless we're talking about the side of it that is pushing to be part of the science curriculum (which I agree is ridiculous). Science class in high school shouldn't be about ultimate origins or anything involving metaphysics. Many IDers see their particular brand of the theory (a directed panspermia) as not even invoking metaphysical entities, but this is clearly not the mainstream ID viewpoint that is trying to make its way into the schools. But as for keeping metaphysics out of the science classroom, I actually do see this as one area where IDers have done us all a great service in pointing out the many naturalistic metaphysical statements that have been made by Darwinian materialists in high school text books (to the effect that Darwinian processes have no *ultimate* goal or purpose and were not part of any divinely preordained process). I have no problem with ID taught in courses of a philosophical nature. And I think philosophy is where the real interesting work is done anyway. Actually, I think you must study philosophy, to some extent, to really have a solid understanding of any field. In science itself, it is philosophy of science that undergirds - determining the criteria of theory adjudication.


Post a Comment

<< Home