Ultima Thule

In ancient times the northernmost region of the habitable world - hence, any distant, unknown or mysterious land.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Why ID should be taught

By Aussiegirl

Jonah Avriel Cohan also weighs in inThe American Thinker on why he thinks ID should be taught, if not in science classes then in philosophy classes, and busts some prevailing myths about ID. Here's a good excerpt which talks about the concept of the "Anthropic Principle".

In 1930, F.R. Tennant wrote a magnificent book called Philosophical Theology, wherein he developed something called “The Anthropic Principle.” This principle suggested that the cosmos was fashioned for the development of intelligent life. Had there been only a slight alteration in the values of, say, the charge of the electron or the degree of nuclear force in the universe then intelligent life, or any life at all for that matter, would most likely not have developed. Tennant said it was possible to imagine a frenzied world wherein no rules held. But the actual universe was not chaotic and was evidently regulated in such a way that the evolutionary process lead to an environment in which intelligent life – think Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Jr., Florence Nightingale – could exist. Such intellect, he thought, suggested evidence of a divine plan. Of course, Tennant’s conclusion might well have been mistaken, but he was right to point out that there was nothing obviously incompatible between the theory of evolution and the notion that a deity designed the evolutionary process itself.

Accordingly, the current idea that the “science” of evolution is logically at odds with the “faith” of intelligent design may rest on a false disjunction.


At 11:12 PM, Blogger BonnieBlueFlag said...

This must be a sign of the "end times." I have lived long enough, to find out that Sister Mary Elephant was right all along in her religious instructions on creation. Do you suppose that she could have been right about patten leather shoes too?

At 12:54 PM, Blogger Billy D said...

Good post girlie.
I can allow for evolution if it involves a Creator God. For some reason, science seems to want to remove that possibility, and I can only imagine it's because then they'd have to admit that they're not the smartest kids on the playground, which is a notion that only they themselves believe anyway. Whew.

At 9:52 AM, Blogger Skeptic101 said...

I'll admit that ID does have some romanticism to it, but in reality it cannot be taken as a scientific theory. There is no valid way to test it. We can't ask the creator, test his existance, etc. Therefore since you cannot test it through the scientific method, it is not a scientific theory and belongs in religion.
And if you were to look at the scientists who actually research ID, most of them are "god fearing" individuals but strongly believe in the separation of science and religion. As it should be.


Post a Comment

<< Home