Once More, Into the Breach
The ID speaker today was interesting, but I think a bit off track. I don't think putting ID into the category of science is defensible, and trying to put it there tacitly accepts the other side's best argument that their position is scientific. Nobody, but nobody, has ANY scientific understanding of the beginning, either of matter, of life, of consciousness, etc. ID's have a philosphical explaination: someone or thing created these things. Evolutionists also have a philosophical explaination: these things were created by chance circumstances. Both are philosphical, and if one is taught, the other must be as well, but as philosophical points, not as scientific. Much of what is accepted as science today is simply philosophy with some fun facts to cite, but with no demonstrable causal connection. The vestigal organ debate? Philosophical. Intra-species change? Philosophical. I just wish scientists would stop pretending to be the be-all end all of rational knowledge in today's world. A lot of them work off biases and assumptions like everyone else, and then everything counts as evidence for their side, and anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is against progress, a superstitious fool, and blind to science. But, in the interests of intellectual honesty, I don't like IDers also fighting in this territory. They don't belong there either.