So yeah, as a few of you have noticed, there’s actually been a good and lengthy discussion on my “Lee Strobel is an Idiot” posting on August 3rd, which I find rather fascinating. I’m very much enjoying the stimulating conversation that’s going on there between very diverse people with different backgrounds and understanding. I hope it continues since I’m learning a decent amount from it!
…which brings me to another subject… I’ve been thinking recently about why all these articles and such are coming up about Intelligent Design Theory versus Evolution, or more importantly, why I seem to be making a relatively big deal about it. Yesterday, I noticed that this week’s Time Magazine is publishing a few articles on the subject and even has it on the cover for the week. I guess it represents a crossroads in my life, perhaps. I’ve been going to church for many years; I’m already entrenched at one in St. Louis where I get to play drums every week (score… ;-)). But at the same time, I’m continuing with my graduate school education. I now have a bachelor’s degree in Chemistry and in Biology, so I’ve lived and breathed science for the past 5 years (if not longer), while at the same time attending the Wesley House regularly and hearing the “other side” of the story. I don’t know that I’m making decisions or life plans or anything around this “crossroads,” yet I think I am making progress toward the “truth,” or however close to it one can get.
The ID vs Evolution debate is a difficult one that will never be fully completed. I posted an article yesterday that is written by a proponent of the ID side of things. I don’t agree with a few things out of his article, but I do agree that the problem needs to be resolved with healthy debate, much like we are doing in the “Lee Strobel” posting. There are severe problems with the way ID is presented to young school kids. On the other hand, Evolution is still a theory (although, a very well-supported one…) and should be treated as such. Neither is truly “right” as they are being taught today. I guess more time is needed to come to a clear consensus. The issue needs good, healthy discussion before anyone will waver and listen to the other side’s argument…and I certainly find myself leaning toward one side, unable to listen to the other.
The problem is: which one?
To me, the crucial difference between Evolution and ID is that Evolution is a science and ID is not.
I’m not just trying to spread rhetoric. Let me explain.
The scientific method has been well established.
1) Observation
2) Hypothesis
3) Prediction
4) Test/Experiment (on the prediction)
Science classes are not open-ended searches for “truth.” They are, rather, “scientific” searches for truth. They commit themselves to the scientific method.
Evolutionary “theory” follows the scientific method. It makes observations, develops hypotheses, makes predictions, and tests the predictions.
ID does not follow the scientific method. It starts with a test of a prediction from evolutionary theory (e.g. gradual evolution from simplicity to complexity) and then develops a hypothesis (viz. this particular organism could only have been designed by an intelligent designer). Then they stop. They make no predictions from this hypothesis, and offer no tests of any predictions.
ID has no place in a science class, because it is not committed to the scientific method.
Does that mean that ID is false? No, it only means it is not scientific. Do I oppose teaching ID in schools? No. I do, however, oppose teaching ID in a science class because ID is not a science.
I would be fine if high schools offered a philosophy class in which the scientific method itself were examined, and in which ID was discussed. I only have a problem with ID in science classes.
If ID proponents can reframe their discussion in terms of science, then we can talk. First, though, I need to know what predictions ID makes, and how those predictions can be tested.
hmm…well, except that it’s kind of cool that random people read andy’s blog and then respond, i think that there is no “truth” to be found in this debate…we can only hold either side to it’s repective theories and believe what we want without forcing our own version of the truth on anyone else….the end.
Alright.. here is the deal… I _HATE_ that there are, as brooke says, two sides. Why is it that I can’t see that God made this world, in one way or another, with a specific set of rules and guidelines… ie.. physics. Perhaps all of the mechanics of where we live are vital to us being here. Biology and Chemistry in all of their complexity are in no way marginalized if I believe that Carbon was created and made to work as it does by God Almighty. God is in no way marginalized if I believe a theory about long shot odds which came to be, resulting in us. I still believe I have a soul. I still believe God doesn’t have to perform the supernatural to get the job done. I still believe in God and I still believe in Biology.