| Oct. 21st, 2005 @ 04:43 pm On Intelligent Design again |
|---|
'Intelligent design' has been on my mind again lately. Last night, Catalyst ran a story on ID. While I was only keeping half an ear on the story, it was still interesting to hear, though I have heard it most of it before.
(Interestingly, that link contains the entire transcript of the story.)
The bit I hadn't heard before was the Australian angle - which is that the government is saying that ID should be presented as a valid theory in schools. Basically, they're parroting what the US (Mis)administration has been saying. Which is worrying. This really isn't science. It's not even a hypothesis. You can't test it, you can't prove it, and you can't falsify it. You have to take it on faith. Hm, what does that sound like?
The program interviewed Michael Behe, one of the main proponents of ID. He was asked who he thought the intelligent designer was. He said, "I'm happy to say I think it's God." But of course.
Apparently, Behe has admitted Intelligent Design can't be considered a scientific theory - not unless you change the meaning of the word theory. You can see the story here. Found via this entry in John Scalzi's blog, which is good reading in itself.
And now, some ID-related links.
The only debate on Intelligent Design that matters: It may have some holes in it, but it's quite funny. Plus, it deals with the knee-breaking of an ID advocate. What's not to like?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has not yet touched me with His Noodly Appendage, but if Intelligent Design is to be taught in schools, then His teachings should be taught in schools too. |
