On creationism and anti-science
If you want to challenge evolution? Fine and dandy. Happens all the time. There's a reason the theory as it stands is not identical to the one that Darwin put forth; science has not stood still for the past two hundred years. Darwin would have had no idea what a "gene" was - the incorporation of genetics into evolutionary theory was one of the bigger shake-ups in biology.
If you want to suggest that "intelligent design" as it currently stands is anything but religion in poorly-concealed drag? You need to take a good hard look at yourself.
What predictions has ID made that can be experimentally verified? What facet of biology does it purport to explain, that evolution can't? Frankly speaking, what use is it?
The reason I say "creation vs. science" is that, again and again, we've seen places like the Discovery Institute claiming two things:
1) Evolution is flawed, faulty or otherwise unworkable (a statement which, though it requires supporting data, could understandably be put forth), and therefore,
2) Because of (1), creationism is the way to go.
The big problem is part 2. Saying that if the currently-accepted theory is no good, then your pet theory must replace it? That just doesn't fly. A hypothesis must stand on its own two feet, and creationism just plain hasn't done that.
Creationists, by and large, don't try to do the science. They don't do independent research, they don't publish papers; for the most part, they try to appeal directly to the public, or change what's taught in schools, or open theme parks or creation museums.
That isn't challenging dogma. It's changing the rules of the game when the score doesn't go your way.
If you want to suggest that "intelligent design" as it currently stands is anything but religion in poorly-concealed drag? You need to take a good hard look at yourself.
What predictions has ID made that can be experimentally verified? What facet of biology does it purport to explain, that evolution can't? Frankly speaking, what use is it?
The reason I say "creation vs. science" is that, again and again, we've seen places like the Discovery Institute claiming two things:
1) Evolution is flawed, faulty or otherwise unworkable (a statement which, though it requires supporting data, could understandably be put forth), and therefore,
2) Because of (1), creationism is the way to go.
The big problem is part 2. Saying that if the currently-accepted theory is no good, then your pet theory must replace it? That just doesn't fly. A hypothesis must stand on its own two feet, and creationism just plain hasn't done that.
Creationists, by and large, don't try to do the science. They don't do independent research, they don't publish papers; for the most part, they try to appeal directly to the public, or change what's taught in schools, or open theme parks or creation museums.
That isn't challenging dogma. It's changing the rules of the game when the score doesn't go your way.