Faith-Based Auto Mechanics
Intelligent Design isn't science; it cannot meet the standards of science; it doen't want to meet the standards of science; it doesn't want to be a science. So why does it want to be part of the science curriculum? Why would anybody want to be part of a game and not want to play by the rules?
If Intelligent Design is to be placed in a curriculum, it seems to find its best fit in a philosophy curriculum, within the subject area of metaphysics. Perhaps aspects of Intelligent Design might be considered in epistimology and ontology, and the specialized area of philosophy of science. But trying to place the study of Intelligent Design in a science curriculum is like trying to add Marxism or Taoism to a science curriculum. These belief systems may also make claims to explaining existence, but they are not playing by the rules of science, and so have not found a place in a science curriculum.
If someone enters a game and does not follow the rules, then the nature of the game itself is changed. What is being played is not longer the original game. If someone enters a soccer match and picks up the ball and runs with it, the game is no longer soccer. Goals scored by a person carrying the ball are not considered valid soccer players and are not counted. If someone wants to carry a ball to score points, then they should play American football or rugby. By if they insist on carrying the ball during a soccer match, the only result they can have is to disrupt the game. And if they cannot be ejected, they end up destroying the game since points scored in such a game are not comparable to points scored in regulation games.
If Intelligent Design proponents are after funding, then they should show results. That is basically why scientific endevours can get funding, because they are based on a method that has produced results in the past. An auto mechanic can stay in business because he can fix cars. A faith-based auto mechanic who won't change a spark plug or clear a fuel line is a waste of money.
If Intelligent Design is to be placed in a curriculum, it seems to find its best fit in a philosophy curriculum, within the subject area of metaphysics. Perhaps aspects of Intelligent Design might be considered in epistimology and ontology, and the specialized area of philosophy of science. But trying to place the study of Intelligent Design in a science curriculum is like trying to add Marxism or Taoism to a science curriculum. These belief systems may also make claims to explaining existence, but they are not playing by the rules of science, and so have not found a place in a science curriculum.
If someone enters a game and does not follow the rules, then the nature of the game itself is changed. What is being played is not longer the original game. If someone enters a soccer match and picks up the ball and runs with it, the game is no longer soccer. Goals scored by a person carrying the ball are not considered valid soccer players and are not counted. If someone wants to carry a ball to score points, then they should play American football or rugby. By if they insist on carrying the ball during a soccer match, the only result they can have is to disrupt the game. And if they cannot be ejected, they end up destroying the game since points scored in such a game are not comparable to points scored in regulation games.
If Intelligent Design proponents are after funding, then they should show results. That is basically why scientific endevours can get funding, because they are based on a method that has produced results in the past. An auto mechanic can stay in business because he can fix cars. A faith-based auto mechanic who won't change a spark plug or clear a fuel line is a waste of money.
posted by Godel at 12:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home