I.D. Round III

From Greg (thanks) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Creationism_Professor.html

A lot of you have probably already heard but the guy got canned, I mean, uh, resigned. Well, whatever, he shouldn't have written provocative emails on his work account and gotten them posted to a public listserve, but whatever dumbass things he did it kind of reinforces my fear that we are now living in a time of such religious conservatism that it almost borders on "if you're not with us, you're against us." Yeah, real healthy attitude. On both sides. It sickens and disgusts me. I mean, the prof. here was pretty outrageous, too. People like him make it harder for people like ME not to sound like a whack job.

Here's the problem I have with the Intelligent Design debate. People kind of have this attitude like, "all opinions are equal, and it makes total sense that we should have equal time for all sides of the issue. Yeah, let the KIDS decide. Put the evidence in front of them and the better one will win out. What's wrong with giving equal time for Intelligent Design in science classrooms."

Okay, people, with a little help from Webster's here, this is the definition of "THEORY":
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

Now, when most people discuss The Theory of Intelligent Design, they try to present it as a THEORY under definition 5--a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomena. However, this is incorrect. In reality, Intelligent Design only qualifies as a THEORY under definition 2--as in, ABSTRACT THOUGHT OR SPECULATION.

What do I mean by this? Well, Intelligent Design cannot be tested using the Scientific Method. You can observe that there are things in the Evolutionary Theory that cannot be explained. You can formulate a hypothesis to explain this phenomena, namely, that a divine or supernatural entity "fixed" the things that are currently unexplainable, BUT and it's a BIG BUT, you cannot use this hypothesis to accurately predict future phenomena, nor can you use it to predict quantitative results of new observations. In addition, IT CANNOT BE REPLICATED with experimental tests. Therefore, it is not SCIENCE. it's PHILOSOPHY.

Now, the Theory of Evolution is still, excuse the pun, evolving. Much like how Hooke first described the "cells"he saw in cork, and named them after prison cells, but now understand more accurately the full complexity and scope of the modern Cell Theory, Evolution has also moved beyond Darwin's original formulation of his hypothesis. Through the Scientific Method, scientists have added and expanded our knowledge base, amending this hypothesis through replicatable experiments through time.

The theory of Evolution may not be perfect, but it is the basis for almost all understanding of all modern medicine and much of modern science. For example, scientists can actually track and test evolutionary changes in simple organisms such as Viruses. How do people think they come up with each year's flu shots? Scientists simply track the mutations of the viruses and predict, based on pathology and such, which virus group will be the most prevalent the next year. Then they mix up batches of shots to fight that particular virus. We can actually see evolution happening in hospitals where new strains of bacteria have EVOLVED that are resistant to most antibiotics. These super-bacteria are super-lethal and it's kind of important that the scientists who do work in these fields don't just say "well, God made the bacteria change. Guess we'd better go pray!"

As a non-scientific THEORY, rather, as a SPECULATION on the ultimate cause of biological change over time, i.e. that God did it, Intelligent Design is an interesting concept but not really that useful in Scientific Study. I would rather have people learn the Evolutionary Theory with their time in Science Class, so that they will be prepared for understanding this basic building-block of biological knowledge, rather than debating God in the Science Classroom.

For this, I am a closed-minded, radical, left-wing, communist sympathizer who probably doesn't even believe in God and therefore should not be trusted, right?

That's what the Theocracy wants you to believe. I'm not going down without a fight.