Wednesday, August 24, 2005
On Intelligent Design
Cobb County, GA, Dover, PA, and the President all have the topic of intelligent design on their mind. A recent editorial in the Lexington Herald-Leader (it's in their archives, you'll have to search) prompted me to pen a reply to the Editor. Here it is:
In her guest editorial (Sunday, August 21), Jennifer Kasten stated, "Science is narrowly defined here, referring solely to what might be investigated empirically." Ms Kasten is wrong. From Merriam-Webster's dictionary empirical means: 1) originating in or based on observation or experience and 2) relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory. It is unquestioning acceptance of empirical evidence that lends credibility to such beliefs as casting bones, reading entrails, astrology, homeopathic medicine, and countless others. Throughout the history of humanity, any number of beliefs have arisen that promise to better the human condition through some means. Science has been the most successful because it imposes a very structured framework for determining which empirical data are "real" and not the product all-too-human frailties. Science demands that advocates of creationism or intelligent design abide by the rules of science, not because scientists are all atheists, not to play semantic games, not to be somehow unfair or closed minded, but rather to ensure that any claims made are not fraudulent, the product of self-delusion, or otherwise in error. Changing the rhetoric of intelligent design will not validate the proposition.
An excellent summary of evolution as science and the motives behind promoting intelligent design by Jerry Coyne is in the current issue of New Republic. A version of the article called The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name is posted at Ocnus.net.
In her guest editorial (Sunday, August 21), Jennifer Kasten stated, "Science is narrowly defined here, referring solely to what might be investigated empirically." Ms Kasten is wrong. From Merriam-Webster's dictionary empirical means: 1) originating in or based on observation or experience and 2) relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory. It is unquestioning acceptance of empirical evidence that lends credibility to such beliefs as casting bones, reading entrails, astrology, homeopathic medicine, and countless others. Throughout the history of humanity, any number of beliefs have arisen that promise to better the human condition through some means. Science has been the most successful because it imposes a very structured framework for determining which empirical data are "real" and not the product all-too-human frailties. Science demands that advocates of creationism or intelligent design abide by the rules of science, not because scientists are all atheists, not to play semantic games, not to be somehow unfair or closed minded, but rather to ensure that any claims made are not fraudulent, the product of self-delusion, or otherwise in error. Changing the rhetoric of intelligent design will not validate the proposition.
An excellent summary of evolution as science and the motives behind promoting intelligent design by Jerry Coyne is in the current issue of New Republic. A version of the article called The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name is posted at Ocnus.net.
