There are some crazy people who think "Intelligent Design" and Religion should be taught in public school. To which I say:
Okay. Good idea, actually. Because whether you are an Atheist, or a Deist (of whatever variety), or believe in Science! you must realize that religion is a fact of life. It exists in the minds of most people in one way or another. There are a million varieties of it. It is also very complicated and therefore it is a subject that can, and probably should, be discussed in school. However: like politics, religion can be a sticky thing to get into. You can't preach one side, nor one denomination. You can't overtly tell someone that one is right and one is wrong. But, like politics, we should be confident that an intelligent, well educated student can make an intelligent, well educated decision of their own which, if it is intelligent, should be a viable opinion.
Right?
However, that does not mean "Intelligent Design" should be taught in a science class. Because it isn't science. Philosophy? Sure. History? Definitely. Current Events? Yep. Science. No, not really. Nothing about it is "scientific".
Though I can see why some people believe that it is. "Scientists" have gotten into the habit of proposing all sorts of ideas of their own which aren't actually science either. They are just ideas. Philosophies. Supported by logic and reason, but not by any real evidence, besides (perhaps) a small kernel. But evidence is what is needed for a theory to be a "scientific theory". Eleven dimension unifying string theory is a good example of this. There is precious little physical evidence for eleven dimension unifying string theory. Especially from the perspective of a person who isn't a doctor in paranormal (quantum) physics. But, of course, that's because we can't see in eleven dimensions; we only see in three.
Uh huh.
This has led people to believe the "watchmaker argument" is scientific evidence for "Intelligent Design". If you find a watch, you assume it was made by someone; why not assume that the awesome complexity of life and the universe were made by someone as well. That's logical and it makes so much sense that people have used it (in one form or another) for thousands of years at least to point to the existence of God. But it isn't evidence. It's just logic, and it's just a metaphor. Metaphors are great at explaining things, but they are not evidence and they are never, Never Ever, a perfect explanation for anything.
That is why they are "metaphors". Like a parable, they are not literal.
The other thing about metaphors is, you can also punch a hole in them with another metaphor, or another line of logic. Unlike a watch, life can change and adapt, like water to fill a glass perfectly. The watch is like a block. If you find a block to fit a glass perfectly, then it makes sense to assume it was built to fit a glass; however, water always fits the glass and it wasn't tailored to fit the glass. Now, excusing the fact the above is more of a simile than a metaphor, it serves the same purpose of explanation. Also like the "watchmaker argument", it can have a hole punched through it just as easily.
But, as only a kernel of evidence, a case study, my disbelief in metaphors is not scientifically supported. It's only based in logic.
Okay. Good idea, actually. Because whether you are an Atheist, or a Deist (of whatever variety), or believe in Science! you must realize that religion is a fact of life. It exists in the minds of most people in one way or another. There are a million varieties of it. It is also very complicated and therefore it is a subject that can, and probably should, be discussed in school. However: like politics, religion can be a sticky thing to get into. You can't preach one side, nor one denomination. You can't overtly tell someone that one is right and one is wrong. But, like politics, we should be confident that an intelligent, well educated student can make an intelligent, well educated decision of their own which, if it is intelligent, should be a viable opinion.
Right?
However, that does not mean "Intelligent Design" should be taught in a science class. Because it isn't science. Philosophy? Sure. History? Definitely. Current Events? Yep. Science. No, not really. Nothing about it is "scientific".
Though I can see why some people believe that it is. "Scientists" have gotten into the habit of proposing all sorts of ideas of their own which aren't actually science either. They are just ideas. Philosophies. Supported by logic and reason, but not by any real evidence, besides (perhaps) a small kernel. But evidence is what is needed for a theory to be a "scientific theory". Eleven dimension unifying string theory is a good example of this. There is precious little physical evidence for eleven dimension unifying string theory. Especially from the perspective of a person who isn't a doctor in paranormal (quantum) physics. But, of course, that's because we can't see in eleven dimensions; we only see in three.
Uh huh.
This has led people to believe the "watchmaker argument" is scientific evidence for "Intelligent Design". If you find a watch, you assume it was made by someone; why not assume that the awesome complexity of life and the universe were made by someone as well. That's logical and it makes so much sense that people have used it (in one form or another) for thousands of years at least to point to the existence of God. But it isn't evidence. It's just logic, and it's just a metaphor. Metaphors are great at explaining things, but they are not evidence and they are never, Never Ever, a perfect explanation for anything.
That is why they are "metaphors". Like a parable, they are not literal.
The other thing about metaphors is, you can also punch a hole in them with another metaphor, or another line of logic. Unlike a watch, life can change and adapt, like water to fill a glass perfectly. The watch is like a block. If you find a block to fit a glass perfectly, then it makes sense to assume it was built to fit a glass; however, water always fits the glass and it wasn't tailored to fit the glass. Now, excusing the fact the above is more of a simile than a metaphor, it serves the same purpose of explanation. Also like the "watchmaker argument", it can have a hole punched through it just as easily.
But, as only a kernel of evidence, a case study, my disbelief in metaphors is not scientifically supported. It's only based in logic.
No comments:
Post a Comment