Re: ID theory vs. Science
On Sat Jun 03 2000 - 00:24:27 EDT,
Chris Cogan (ccogan@telepath.com) wrote:
... text deleted ...
>>Having said that, there is no reason why ID should
>>not be taught in public schools. ID is a scientific
>>position not a religion. It has as much right to be
>>taught in public schools as materialistic-naturalism
>>which is now taught in public schools.
>Chris
>If it's a *scientific* theory, then there must be
>testable empirical implications. Name *ONE.*
>Further, if it's a scientific theory that's supposed
>to be superior to NET (Naturalistic Evolutionary Theory),
>then there must be at least one empirical implication
>that can be tested and that is not implied by NET.
... text deleted ...
Being a geologist, I feel very left out by how intelligent
deisgn is being discussed in this forum. Fossils and
evolution are fine, but how does intelligent design (ID)
relate to aspects of the Earth Sciences besides
paleontology? Is ID limited only to evolution or can
it be applied to providing superior explantions to the
"materialistic-naturalism" methodologies used in
sedimentology, organic geochemistry, igneous and
metamorphic petrology, plate tectonics, and so forth?
Can the supporters of ID show me how it explains Bowens
reaction series, characteristics of the modern
Mississippi's birdfoot delta, Pennsylvanian cyclothems,
and other geologic observations better than the conventional
"materialistic-naturalism" that geologists now use?
As an independent explorationist, the supporters of ID
can win me over instantly, if they can show how I can use
ID theory to find oil quicker and cheaper than conventional
"materialistic-naturalism" can now do. In fact, if they
can demonstrate that application for ID, the Discovery
Institute and their fellow travelers would be innudated
with research money from the big oil companies who care
more about acheiving results than ideology when it comes
finding oil.
It seems like ID is an extremely limited concept given
that, except for some astrophysics, it apparently is
largely, if not completely limited, to the discussion of
evolution.
Of course, I could propose an "environmentalist" version
of ID in which the creation of vast accumulations of
hydrocarbons was part of an intelligent design to sequester
carbon dioxide in the Earth's Crust and terraform the
Earth into a habitable planet. Tree-huggers would love
this explanation, because it make the exploration,
development, and production of hydrocarbons quite contrary
to God's will and blasphemous. Of course, as a geologist
in the oil business, I could argue that the formation of
huge hydrocarbon deposits was part of an intelligent design
to create large quanties of readily accessiable and useable
enegry available for mankind to create a technological
society. In that case, I the person doing God's will
and the environmentalists are the unpardonable and
unspeakable sinners.
ID can be fun. :-) Using it person can easily justfy
anything he or she wants for fun and profit.
Yours,
Keith Littleton
littlejo@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
"Another set of fool professors. Just intellectuals,
and you know what an intellectual is, don't you?
Someone educated beyond his intelligence."
-- Representative Henry Hyde speaking to the
U.S. Senate about evidence to be submitted
for Clinton's defense.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 03 2000 - 02:51:01 EDT