|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 1/7/2011 11:51 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I've seen a lot of arguments for and against whether ID should be taught
> in schools alongside evolution. For me, these all miss the main point:
> ID is not a scientific theory. It may or may not be correct, but it's
> not testable. Because it doesn't /predict/ anything.
Actually, it does. It predicts, among other things, that the genetic
code for organisms may have features of no present use, but which may be
of use by descendant creatures. An intelligent designer, especially one
of the intellect required to design a eukaryotic cell, would have some
capacity for anticipating future changes to the environment and can
front-load the genetic code in preparation for this.
Be that as it may, I am against the teaching of life's origins on the
public dime, because it is a matter of public debate, and is therefore
incompatible with the principles that underlie a free society. What
invariably happens, when the government is allowed this power, is that
the people who are in the wrong will go running to the government to
have their view imposed by fiat, and all conflicting views suppressed to
one degree or another. At the present moment a person who is skeptical
that natural selection is sufficient to explain the entirety of
observable living systems is subject to exclusion from participating in
scientific and educational endeavors, even when the topic has no bearing
on the origin of life. But in times past it was the other way around.
"But we're not ignorant like they were then." Actually, it's because of
a shift in political connections.
As a practical matter, I of course oppose the teaching of views I
disagree with, but I also oppose the forced teaching of views that I
agree with, because that breeds resentment--especially if someone gets
drunk with power and exceeds his authority--and I don't want my views
getting blamed for some idiot's power trip.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |