I had one more thing to say, so let's pop this quote back in here first:
NAS (National Academy of Sciences) is in agreement that science is limited to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data: “Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based upon empirical evidence are not part of science.”
"Science is a particular way of knowing about the world." A particular way. Just one. Implying there are others. Why does the definition state it this way? Because, contrary to popular opinion, most scientists do have religious beliefs, and those beliefs are important to them.
Science is a way of knowing the world that we can share with each other. In practice this gets hard, especially with big, amorphous things like evolution, with so many bits of evidence to compile. It was easier for Galileo.
"Watch me drop these two objects from the Tower of Pisa."
"Ooooh. Do it again."
It's harder for evoltionists.
"Look at this fossil. It means what I say it means. Honestly."
How do we know? That's where the process comes in. A scientist presents his evidence to the rest of the scientific community, and they bounce it around like a volleyball (or smack it like a pinata). Some ideas like string theory are subject to great disdain in the community before enough evidence supports the theory for others to take it seriously too. Now it's consider one of the hottest new fields for young physicists to dive into.
Why won't this be the fate of Intelligent Design? Because no one is presenting evidence for it. No one is putting it out there in the scientific community to be volleyballed or pinata'ed. ID does have a role in the scientific community: the problems it raises with evolution has forced evolutionists to stop resting on their laurels and really crack down on solving those problems. There are slews of articles out there discounting every point of Darwin's Black Box. Would anyone have bothered if there had been no Darwin's Black Box? Raising questions about things is always important. Poking holes in existing theories is a crucial part of science, and ID participates in that way.
But back to the beginning of what I was saying. "Science is a particular way of knowing the world." There are others. Religion and philosophy are other ways. I think they are equally valid in a general sense. But to the vast majority of us, the truths we get from religion and philosophy are far more important to us than anything we get from science. But I said earlier that science is shared. Religion and philosophy? Not so much. And that, to me, is as it should be. Your religion, your philosophy, is a huge part of what makes you you. The idea that everyone should think and feel the same in this regard is apalling to me. I love diversity. I love having friends and family that run the gamut of Christian, Jew, Muslim, pagan, aetheist; fundamentalist to downright hedonist. And I fully support everyone's right to express their own religion as loud and as proud as they feel inclined. But proselytizing my children (or anyone else's for that matter)? Now that's downright unamerican. And I think you'll burn in hell.
(Dude, that's a joke.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment