Can Someone please explain to me. .
. . .why "intelligent design" is anti-evolution?
Why accepting evolution and common ancestry and natural selection and that mutations in genetic material account for it all demands that one also accept that these genetic mutations have all happened (and are continuing to happen) as strictly random chance events?
Teachers, Scientists Vow to Fight Challenge to Evolution - Washington Post
most of the "scientist" quotes are directed against creationism. Intelligent Design is NOT creationism.
Intelligent design theory argues for a designer behind life - Kansas City Star
Does "Intelligent Design" Threaten the Definition of Science? - National Geographic News
Kansas Evolution Debate Frequently Asked Questions - Discovery Institute News (Discovery Institute is blamed/credited with spearheading this showdown)
- Sue
posted by Suerreal @ 11:33 PM
2 Comments:
Additional points from discussion on the UnaBoard:
How does a hypothesis that everything is due to random chance require any less of a leap of faith than a hypothesis that there is something or someone outside the system steering? How is the hypothesis that this progression occurred because of sequential random associations and (once nucleic acids existed) sequential random mutations any less dependent upon a particular belief system (that there is no being/force/principle) than intelligent design?
When designing an experiment, one key element is determining what level of certainty you want to have that any observed differences in groups (control vs. intervention) is due to the intervention vs. chance.
You are comparing a hypothesis that an intervention will result in a different outcome to a hypothesis that it will not. The second hypothesis is called the null hypothesis, and attributes any observed to chance.
I see some analogy between the null hypothesis and the "random mutation" hypothesis for how new traits appear in evolution theory.
The problem I see in that is that the null hypothesis is not intended to be testable itself; it is not falsifiable. It is a philosophical tool, a yardstick, if you will, to gauge how well a proposed hypothesis explains the observations.
It seems to me that the Random Mutation hypothesis has been elevated to axiom without acknowledging that:
- it is not necessary for one to accept this to understand/accept evolution
- axioms are more definition than fact, and that, as the field of non-Euclidian geometries demonstrate, such definitions often limit our ability to really understand things.
Post a Comment
<< Home