More about the ID debate

[amberica]

Uriah Kriegel teaches Philosophy at the University of Arizona. He wrote this article which I think should be required reading for anyone who thinks "Intelligent Design" belongs anywhere even close to a science classroom.

I am going to print it out and keep a few copies with me in case I ever meet anyone who still thinks this garbage qualifies as science. Then I will hand it to them and tell them to remember that there is a way to tell what IS science and what ISN'T, and this, most definitely, ISN'T.

Comments

[mouse-gerald.livejournal.com]

Great article, thanks for the link. This is awesome: "To win in the game of science, a theory must be submitted to many tests and survive all of them without being falsified. But to be even allowed into the game, the theory must be falsifiable in principle: there must be a conceivable experiment that would prove it false."

"Because God made it that way" is such a simple answer to any "Mommy, why is _____?" question that who can not be tempted by it? We all like tidiness, and nobody likes telling a child or a fundamentalist "We don't really know," because then they tend to go off and make up the answer on their own, claiming it as fact and reasoning, "Well, you didn't have an answer." Of course, Darwin gave us an answer, but it's an arguable answer, whereas (as the article you linked to points out) one can't really argue with "Because God made it that way."