Roadmap of a troubled mind

People occasionally ask me why I don't believe in a deity. I either answer that I'd rather not be the butt of some omnipresent entity's joke, or that and I have more faith in human beings. Both are true

Monday, January 16, 2006

On Evolution and Intelligent Design.

Evolution is a theory - However, it's been pretty well backed up by the fossil record. You can make and test hypotheses with it, and once you've accepted it you can use that knowledge as a building block to other interesting uses (for example: allele usage in determining a genetic common ancestor).
Intelligent Design (ID) should not be taken lightly. While it is not credible from a scientific standpoint, I like to think of it as an enemy of evolution. That's a good thing. An enemy will tell you where you are weakest. ID does that for evolution.
A high school student who has studied evolution does not come away with enough knowledge to effectively argue against any of the main arguments that ID brings against evolution. The points ID makes, namely issues with irreducability and closed systems are valid arguments. There are also rebuttals to these arguments, but a high school student doesn't learn them. That's the chink in our armor, that we arent' giving our students enough of information to argue the matter effectively.
If we gave them this information you'll see a lot of this argument die away. Unless you know what's really happening, the arguments are pretty effective at poking holes in evolution and making it seem uncredible.
The content of the rebuttal arguments aren't difficult, though they can be a bit lengthy to explain and I am not qualified to explain them. They're out there though. It's just usually given to 3rd year bio majors. Most people aren't 3rd year bio majors (I'm not, but I know people who are), and so most don't get the rebuttal information.
I think we SHOULD keep an open mind, and we should know what people think are holes in our theories. We should work on either acknowledging these holes exist, or explaining why they're not holes at all. The automatic naysay of an unpopular theory advances our understanding not one bit. In fact, it sets us back because it locks us into a paradigm that does not embrace or admitting our understanding may be incomplete. If we fail to question and understand, then we've stopped learning.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home