It might be fair to argue against ID from the science perspective, but unfortunately that is not where it has to win hearts and minds. For most people, science is something that should serve humanity, not the other way around. If theories are flying around that are questionable and run counter to a meaningful universe for them, of course they are going to be either indifferent or even hostile to it. And with little experimental evidence, Darwin is left to run on "real evidence" as you call it. Which is open to interpretation as to what "real evidence" means and is where the heart of the matter is.
Of course, my problem with ID is not that it says the material universe is so complex it had to be engineered. It is that the meaning of that engineering is extremely personal and I'm not sure how you teach that without leaning too hard toward a particular philosophy.
And it is not to say that biology or science is particularly painting a meaningless picture of the universe. On the contrary, I think statistics should probably be brought up which point to how infinitely small the probability is that the universe and life on earth happened randomly. And the uses of altruism, cooperation, and communication in natural selection and evolution have interesting things to say. But then again, you don't find these always being taught.
Perhaps some of it should best be left to, say, a history class that wants to speculate on the prehistoric? But beyond, I'm afraid "evidence" is a shaky idea. One persons "correlation" is another's "spurious." And, even then, correlation does not imply causation.
It's a complex world and we just don't have all the answers...maybe THAT is what we should be teaching in the schools. LOL
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-23 09:40 am (UTC)From:Of course, my problem with ID is not that it says the material universe is so complex it had to be engineered. It is that the meaning of that engineering is extremely personal and I'm not sure how you teach that without leaning too hard toward a particular philosophy.
And it is not to say that biology or science is particularly painting a meaningless picture of the universe. On the contrary, I think statistics should probably be brought up which point to how infinitely small the probability is that the universe and life on earth happened randomly. And the uses of altruism, cooperation, and communication in natural selection and evolution have interesting things to say. But then again, you don't find these always being taught.
Perhaps some of it should best be left to, say, a history class that wants to speculate on the prehistoric? But beyond, I'm afraid "evidence" is a shaky idea. One persons "correlation" is another's "spurious." And, even then, correlation does not imply causation.
It's a complex world and we just don't have all the answers...maybe THAT is what we should be teaching in the schools. LOL