January 26, 2005

The problem with Intelligent Design

Ugh, I caught a new meme the other day reading Carl Zimmer's latest Corante blog entry: Young Earth Creationism.

What a blatant attempt by biblical literalists to capitalize on the success of the Intelligent Design meme to make their claim of the 6,000 year old Earth sound scientific.

Time to rant:

At its core, the debate is really about belief in scientific naturalism or creationism. The scientific method to this point in time has done a rather remarkable job of showing how the universe and all that's in it has likely come about through autonomous processes.

Opponents argue, of course, that these phenomena are not autonomous and that they are "guided." Because the creationists have no empirical evidence to support their claim, and because they have no genuine scientific methodology to test their hypothesis, their argument consists almost exclusively of exposing the holes in current scientific theories--as if the scientists themselves weren't aware of problems or gaps in the current knowledge base.

Ultimately, however, because creationists depend on the absence of evidence to prove the rather extraordinary claim of God, their mission is doomed to failure.

No comments: