"I think what arouses the ire of scientists (about intelligent design) is . . . the notion that it belongs in the same universe as scientific analysis," Kennedy said in a telephone interview.
"It's a hypothesis that's not testable, and one of the important recognition factors for science and scientific ideas is the notion of testability, that you can go out and do an experiment and learn from it and change your idea," said Kennedy. "That's just not possible with a notion that's as much a belief in spirituality as intelligent design is."
(Via Chapel Perilous.)
Just to clarify my position on the "intelligent design" thing: I concede that the observation that our universe is hospitable to complex life is a potentially interesting philosophical issue. On the other hand, I don't think it's nearly as interesting as some, who contend the universe must have been crafted with terrestrial biology in mind.
After all, we observe the universe as it is because if it were any different we simply wouldn't be here. I'm perpetually surprised by how many otherwise accomplished cosmological thinkers balk when faced with this simple -- if elliptical -- proposition.
And although the prospect is tarred by its many "fringe" associations, I see no reason why our species couldn't have been the recipient of at least one genetic "upgrade" on behalf of extraterrestrial visitors. But ET intervention doesn't refute evolution. Rather, it helps refine our appreciation for evolution by forcing us to consider the process ultimately responsible for our hypothetical benefactors.
Does this validate "intelligent design"? Emphatically, no.
Of course, all of this is assuming, for argument's sake, that the personalities responsible for the carnivalesque ID "debate" are motivated out of desire for scientific truth. They aren't. ID is an uppity euphemism for "Creationism" -- and as those of us who have been watching know, "Creationism" is a religious ploy that seeks to deride empirical reality in favor of politically expedient superstition.
4 comments:
Would the silly institute that pays people to write about ID pay me for THIS, d'you think?
In a word? "No." :-(
After all, we observe the universe as it is because if it were any different we simply wouldn't be here.
No, we observe the universe as it is because we are here to see it. If the universe were different enough for us to not exist, that would not preclude the existence or nature of the universe.
Did I misunderstand your point somehow?
Razorsmile--
Hmmm. Are we saying the same thing?
I'm not sure. If I understood you correctly, you were saying that, by observing the universe, we cause it to be the way it is. I'm saying it's the other way around.
Post a Comment