Barron of Blog Wife, Kids, and the Pursuit of Happiness

16Nov/076

Judgement Day on Nova

PBS aired a special Tuesday evening on the recent Intelligent Design trial that took place in Pennsylvania. I have been watching segments of the program and they did a spectacular job of explaining both sides of the trial; it is one of the best summaries of the trial I have seen.
Judgment Day on Nova
Personally I don't really think this was a trial at all. Intelligent design is creationism, and creationism isn't science. It's really that simple.

Someone who argues for intelligent design is equivalent to standing in front of a stone wall and, noticing a stone missing in the wall, proclaiming that the entire wall does not exist. Just because we do not (yet) completely understand something does not mean that all that we do know is rubbish.

If you want to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or that God just went *poof* and we appeared, be my guest. But if you try to teach my kid that crap it would be best if you sit down and keep quiet - and while you're sitting there being quiet, try reading a book.

  • Pete

    well spoken sir.

  • Pete

    well spoken sir.

  • http://brentkatcali.blogspot.com Brent Applegate

    Hey Mike -
    I’ll have to check that special out. I don’t totally agree with you. While I grant you that intelligent design isn’t science, the notion that science can prove the lack of a creator is laughable. 6000 years, 13 billion years, whatever. I believe God is at work. Francis Collins book, “Language of God” is a good one to sit down with… Cheers!

  • http://brentkatcali.blogspot.com Brent Applegate

    Hey Mike -
    I’ll have to check that special out. I don’t totally agree with you. While I grant you that intelligent design isn’t science, the notion that science can prove the lack of a creator is laughable. 6000 years, 13 billion years, whatever. I believe God is at work. Francis Collins book, “Language of God” is a good one to sit down with… Cheers!

  • http://mike.shannonandmike.net Mike B.

    Of course science cannot prove the lack of a creator; science can not prove anything about the supernatural by definition.

    But, in the same way that religion should not be used to calculate escape velocity or to determine the composition of our genes, science should not be used to dictate our morals nor our spiritual beliefs. They are two very different things.

    My point of removing religion from the classroom is to protect religion as much as it is to protect science.

  • http://mike.shannonandmike.net Mike B.

    Of course science cannot prove the lack of a creator; science can not prove anything about the supernatural by definition.

    But, in the same way that religion should not be used to calculate escape velocity or to determine the composition of our genes, science should not be used to dictate our morals nor our spiritual beliefs. They are two very different things.

    My point of removing religion from the classroom is to protect religion as much as it is to protect science.

  • Pingback: Barron of Blog » Duelity