Tuesday, June 21, 2005

More ID?

So now we can add PA to the list of Intelligent Design supporters. Here is my favorite quote.

Michael J. Behe, a biological sciences professor at Lehigh University, told the subcommittee that intelligent design has no religious underpinnings. Critics argue that it is a variation of creationism, the biblical-based view that regards God as the creator of life.

Behe said intelligent design merely contends that evidence of complex physical structures shows that design, rather than evolution, is responsible for an organism or cell.

No religious underpinnings? How would you support intelligent design without religion. Intelligent design requires a designer. The designer would either have to be a supreme being or an some alien life. If it is an alien life then it has no scientific basis considering we do not know of any alien life to exist. If it is a supreme being then obviously there are religious underpinnings. Either way intelligent design is not science and should not be taught in science. If you want to teach intelligent design somewhere else fine, but it's not science.



Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ahhh nothing like religion, science and politics intermingling...

6/21/2005 11:32 AM  
Blogger Mark Nutter said...

Well, on the one hand, it is true that intelligent design needn't necessarily have religious underpinnings. Someone might propose a scientific method for, say, distinguishing pottery shards from fragments of dried, naturally-occurring clay at an archeological dig. That would be a legitimate application for a scientific theory of ID. On the other hand, if you're going to argue (as a number of ID advocates do) that the universe itself is designed specifically to support life, I for one would like to hear the non-supernatural explanation for this non-divine race of alien beings responsible for designing and creating the universe ;)

6/21/2005 3:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

View My Stats