Where Angels Fear to Tread

Scott Adams at The Dilbert Blog, of all the unlikely people, jumps feet first into the Intelligent Design dispute, here and here and here. And Pharyngula takes him to the woodshed. Chris, The Uncredible Hallq, is planning a post on the whole hoohah.

UPDATE: Here's a really smart comment on the Dilbert blog, by "Matt G." An excerpt:

Given that genetic variation occurs at random, it follows that that randomness is necessarily caused or uncaused, and it is precisely here that we leave the realm of science and enter the realm of metaphysics. [Matt's example of "caused randomness": license plates of different states appear on the highway at random, but each driver is there for an unknown reason.] To claim that randomness is planned is to assert Intelligent Design. To claim that randomness is unplanned is to assert Materialism. But neither ID nor Materialism are science. Both ID and Materialism are matters of opinion and faith.

Materialism, a matter of faith, claims that Evolution is unplanned because Materialism maintains that the material world is all there is, excluding any possibility of transcendence. On the other hand, belief in ID claims that the context of Evolution is planning by a superior and transcendent intelligence referred to by most folks as God.

Whenever the theory of Evolution is used to surreptitiously assert Materialism we must necessarily expect those holding a different conviction to assert otherwise. The critical point here is to understand that it is not the process of evolution that is being argued. Both Materialism and ID accept the possibility of evolution. The Materialist and the proponent of ID are arguing context—planned or unplanned—not process.

Evolution has nothing to fear from ID. [. . .] ID doesn’t challenge evolution, ID challenges Materialism. Religion as represented by the ID argument is not in any way opposed to science. Religion is, however, unalterably opposed to Materialism.

And that suggests is that all that needs to be said in science class, if someone raises the God or Not question, is, "Science doesn't go there."

Comments

[Chris Hallquist]

That may be all that needs to be said in science class. Unfortunately, that's not what ID proponents want. They want it taught that unguided processes cannot possibly acount for life (or at least that that claim is a scientific idea deserving serious consideration).

[amba]

To be science, to be a theory, they're going to have to show that there are experiments that can test it.

[sleipner]

Arrgh. I wish this issue would just DIE already.

There are thousands of credible scientists from dozens of fields on the side of evolutions, that largely think ID and creationism is bunk, each of which have overwhelming evidence within their field supporting evolutionary theory.

There are a small handful of reputable chaos theoreticians and philosophers who study intelligent design, but very few if any real scientists that actually work in fields that could provide anything more than intellectual masturbation as evidence.

The remainder of ID supporters are generally either creationists in new clothes trying to sneak religion into schools, or people who philosophically or morally object to the universe being "random," and want to believe that there is some "greater meaning" to everything.

As I've said before, ID is a non-scientific, non-falsifiable concept that falls squarely into the realm of mythology, religion, and philosophy, from which it will likely never escape.

[karen]

Hey, sleip- what's the # of infinity?

When did evolution begin?

So, some people think God can be the answer to both of those questions. Too freakin' bad we can say His name allowed(oooops, aloud) in a public classroom... might be trying to convert someone or something!!! Might offend someones non-belief. Righteee-ooooh, then.

[Chris Hallquist]

Karen-

What do you mean to say? Did you mean to say, "can't say His name..." This makes more sense in the context of your post, but is false. As someone who's only been out of public highschool for five months, I can say religion was occasionally discussed when relevant to the subject matter, no one forced us to go through contortions to talk about "God" without saying the word. Nor was prayer banned, in fact, we had a student led prayer group that met in the building.

[karen]

I'm sorry, Chris. Yeah, I meant i thought it was a banned thing- religious symbols like crosses or medals on chains and shirts bearing religious intent, etc. Even saying God's name aloud. What the hell do i know, really. I went to a Catholic school my whole life and send my kids there, as well. Only now dealing w/a public high school cause I cannot afford a private one.

Maybe that's all the ID people would want, or maybe all they once wanted. To allow God to be involved in open discussions when relevent.

It doesn't matter, really. There's always Sunday school for those that do believe. Why even bother w/ID? i'd never even heard of such a thing and i do believe in evolution. As far back as it goes.

[Ivan]

Planned randomness is not random. How stupid are these ID supporters?

[sleipner]

What the ID people really want is to cast doubt on science and to impose their own curriculum on schools, because generally it is much harder for well-educated people with an understanding of science to believe in religious mythology unless they are indoctrinated or brainwashed from an early age to not question "The Truth" (TM) Fundamentalism in particular has a hard time surviving a decent education.

Frankly I don't particularly care whether students choose to attend some *elective* religious studies course in public school, or if they have an extracurricular "prayer club."

What I do object to is having any students mandatorily subjected to religious programming or practices, which is clearly in violation of the separation of church and state. This would include prayers at public school sponsored events, inclusion of creationism or ID in science classes, or (in my opinion) the under God clause of the pledge of allegiance.

[karen]

That's so funny, sleip. That's exactly how i feel about sex ed in schools being taught earlier and earlier. I think that's really funny, ya know?

[sleipner]

I can't understand how people would rather have kids exposed to 13 year old pregnancies and STD's due to blissful ignorance and abstinence education than have them actually learn the facts of life at the age at which their hormones drive them into that realm anyway.

With better nutritional knowledge and various other factors, kids are entering puberty earlier and earlier in this generation, sometimes as early as 8 or 9, especially for women. They sincerely need to know why their bodies are sending them all these overwhelming signals they aren't equipped to understand without help, and what to do and not to do about it.

In any case, TV and movies and their friends will teach them some of the fun details, but none of the safety precautions, probably earlier than you would ever expect. And there's really no way to block that information off, no matter how much you want to keep your kids in a plastic bubble.

Teenagers being the insane, uncontrollable types they are, will probably experiment no matter what you do or say. In addition, the more exotic, mysterious, and forbidden you make a topic, the more likely they are to be attracted to it like a moth to a flame. If you discuss it rationally and explain to them the risks and precautions they should take, it is much less likely that they will end up pregnant, or having syphilis or HIV.

Study after study has proven that sex education is far more valuable in preventing STD's and pregnancy than abstinence education. The only reason it is being pushed is due to the puritanical religious beliefs of our current "leadership," and it totally ignores the relevant science.

AIDS in Africa and elsewhere is accelerating rapidly due to the anti-condom prejudice the abstinence only bias this administration REQUIRES to be attached to its AIDS assistance programs incites.