Oh loads of stuff
I actually wrote an entry yesterday and then decided that it was not something I wanted to share with the world. Suffice to say, there are certain fundamentalist budhist members of the dragon's family attempting to emotionally blackmail her into taking part in a budhist ritual. The dragon was brought up a budhist, but now has atheist feelings and is not interested in budhism at all. This is what upasets me most about religion, it causes rifts, if you're not with them, you're against them. Anyway, I'm not going to dwell on that.
I just heard the latest podcast from the SETI institute about Intelligent Design. I've been vaguely interested in the Intelligent Design debate for a while. I am of the opinion that ID is just creationism in a dress. That is to say, the only argument for ID is that, if you look around, nothing this complex and perfect could have formed through a set of chance happenings. I don't have a probem with the statement, though I think it's wrong, but what bothers me is the fact that the ID nuts are pushing it as science. Indeed some are arguing that ID should be taught with evolution in schools. I actually don't have a problem with ID being taught in schools (or religion come to that) but I do have a problem with it being taught in science classes.
Science is about reaching conclusions based on facts and evidence. There are no facts or evidence to support ID. The ID argument is presented as self evident and literature I've read supoprting ID doesn't so much present any evidence as attempt to destroy evidence for evolution. I'm going to read up about ID properly and present my findings here.
There is apparently another typhoon on it's way and we are supposed to be picking Mei up from the airport tomorrow. I hope it isn't delayed and we end up waiting there for days. She's been to Hong Kong. Let's hope she brings back something nice.
OK, no time for any more. There may be another entry on Sunday if we get typhooned in.
1 Comments:
I've been reading around the topic of ID for a while, and as far as I can tell its central tenet is no more complex than you described here. The classic example or irreducable complexity the IDers cite seems to be the human eye.
Just don't mention to them that there are organisms out there that do have simpler eyes, ignoring the compound eye of insects the nautilus has a lenseless eye that works in much the same way as a pinhole camera.
ID seems like a complete cop-out, and a derivative of creation science. Basically they seem to be saying "well OK, evolution can explain some things, but hey, not these ones - they are too complex for our tiny, religiously motivated minds to accept as being products of evolution".
I put it down to ignorance, and misunderstanding of evolution. Oh, and religious agendas also of course. Recommended reading? The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkings.
Post a Comment
<< Home