Intelligent Design
The blogosphere is debating the hot topic of Intelligent Design, which is the old Creationism dressed up in a 2004 wardrobe.
One of the important new books on this topic is "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism," by a pair of academic scientists. If you can't plunk down $40 for this just yet, there's a good overview of it here.
Needless to say, in this one I'm firmly on the side of Darwin's modern heirs. Prevailing science ought to be questioned, and probed for flaws and contradictions. But some people seem to hope that, if they just attack science in subtle enough terms, it will all just fall down and then we'll all go "back to the Bible" for a science textbook.
There's a fair degree of straw man in the usual creationist argument. Nobody reputable in the world of biology thinks complex systems in living things "just happened by accident." And the creationists know well that the simplistic argument has an advantage in a public forum. Flat-earthers used to be judged winners in public debates in the 19th century, even by people who knew better. All they have to do is say, "look around you; you can see it's flat." An appeal to common sense that can be refuted, but only by a long explanation involving mathematics.
As someone quoted in one of the Dover Township School Board stories said, "it only takes 5 seconds for a baby to throw up on your sweater; it can take hours to get it clean again."
One of the important new books on this topic is "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism," by a pair of academic scientists. If you can't plunk down $40 for this just yet, there's a good overview of it here.
Needless to say, in this one I'm firmly on the side of Darwin's modern heirs. Prevailing science ought to be questioned, and probed for flaws and contradictions. But some people seem to hope that, if they just attack science in subtle enough terms, it will all just fall down and then we'll all go "back to the Bible" for a science textbook.
There's a fair degree of straw man in the usual creationist argument. Nobody reputable in the world of biology thinks complex systems in living things "just happened by accident." And the creationists know well that the simplistic argument has an advantage in a public forum. Flat-earthers used to be judged winners in public debates in the 19th century, even by people who knew better. All they have to do is say, "look around you; you can see it's flat." An appeal to common sense that can be refuted, but only by a long explanation involving mathematics.
As someone quoted in one of the Dover Township School Board stories said, "it only takes 5 seconds for a baby to throw up on your sweater; it can take hours to get it clean again."
