Evolution in schools; legal trap (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, June 04, 2012, 13:55 (4533 days ago) @ David Turell

ROMANSH: The problem David [is] that Intelligent Design is really creationism. And whatever these two concepts are they are not science...-DAVID: I look at some of their reasoning and it fits what I see as I study evolution.-As I see it, these two statements cover two major areas of misunderstanding. Firstly, science is supposed to be neutral. The moment a scientist uses science to support a belief of any kind, whether theistic or atheistic, he leaves the realm of science behind. Nobody knows the "first cause" ... it may be David's Universal Intelligence, it may be the impersonal, unconscious force of Nature ... and all science can do is attempt to unravel how the material universe works. The rest is a matter of faith ... but at least David acknowledges this, whereas atheists like Dawkins seem blissfully unaware of the part faith plays in their advocacy of an impersonal, unconscious force.-Secondly, the fact that something is not science does not mean it is to be dismissed. (I'm not saying you dismiss it, Romansh ... this is a general observation.) Science has so far proved incapable of solving the deepest mysteries of our existence (e.g. the origin of life, the source of consciousness with all its astonishing manifestations), and if the material world as we know it really isn't "all that is", science never will give us the answers. And so until such time as the mysteries are solved, "unscientific" should not be used dismissively ... although I personally would argue against any belief (such as Young Earth Creationism) that categorically contradicted the generally recognized findings of science. ----