Spring Break
Who designed the intelligent designer?
By: William Mulgrew
Issue date: 2/16/07 Section: Ed-Op
Originally published: 2/16/07 at 2:16 AM EST
Last update: 2/16/07 at 2:16 AM EST
Originally published: 2/16/07 at 2:16 AM EST
Last update: 2/16/07 at 2:16 AM EST
- < prev Page 3 of 3
Some tried to explain the Big Bang with quantum physics such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Since the causality of subatomic particles is unnecessary because we cannot predict their speed and location, trying to understand the causality of the Big Bang is likewise unnecessary. This confuses causality and predictability. The Uncertainty Principle doesn't prove that the movement of electrons lacks a cause, only that we can't predict their speed and location at any given time.
The bottom line is that it's an either- or scenario. Either the universe is eternal or there is a supernatural agency that caused the universe. Science overwhelmingly disproves the former.
Asking who designed the intelligent designer confuses the Law of Causality. The law states that everything that had a beginning has a cause. If the universe was created by a supernatural agency, it's likely that agency never had a beginning. But this also is metaphysical speculation.
Jastrow discusses scientists' willful denial in his book, God and the Astronomers. He writes, "Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phases."
I sensed this irritation among some students when Mark Lamontia gave his second ID presentation in the Bossone auditorium Feb. 7. But irritation does not justify suppressing evidence and discussion.
If one is concerned that students won't properly learn the scientific method if ID is taught in the classroom, consider whether origin of life belongs in a biology course at all. No one has observed the origin of life or the evolution between types. The question of what happened in the past doesn't fall under the purview of natural science, but forensic science. Forensic science follows the logics of law and is not confined by the scientific method. Macroevolution, ID and any other origin-of-life hypothesis should be taught in a separate course on biological origins, independent of biological systems. This is the only reasonable compromise between Darwinism and ID.
The bottom line is that it's an either- or scenario. Either the universe is eternal or there is a supernatural agency that caused the universe. Science overwhelmingly disproves the former.
Asking who designed the intelligent designer confuses the Law of Causality. The law states that everything that had a beginning has a cause. If the universe was created by a supernatural agency, it's likely that agency never had a beginning. But this also is metaphysical speculation.
Jastrow discusses scientists' willful denial in his book, God and the Astronomers. He writes, "Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind - supposedly a very objective mind - when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence. We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phases."
I sensed this irritation among some students when Mark Lamontia gave his second ID presentation in the Bossone auditorium Feb. 7. But irritation does not justify suppressing evidence and discussion.
If one is concerned that students won't properly learn the scientific method if ID is taught in the classroom, consider whether origin of life belongs in a biology course at all. No one has observed the origin of life or the evolution between types. The question of what happened in the past doesn't fall under the purview of natural science, but forensic science. Forensic science follows the logics of law and is not confined by the scientific method. Macroevolution, ID and any other origin-of-life hypothesis should be taught in a separate course on biological origins, independent of biological systems. This is the only reasonable compromise between Darwinism and ID.
daenku32
posted 2/16/07 @ 9:23 AM EST
Is this a joke?
You used Big Bang as an example of why ID is part of science, and you attempted to justify an Intelligent Designer using scientific (materialistic) principles. (Continued…)