Once again, the debate over teaching "Intelligent Design" has flared back up in the United States.
Politely described, Intelligent Design doesn't even constitute bad science - after all to apply the term science to it would suggest a degree of rational methodology behind it. At best, ID is a cynical attempt to warp rational science into conformity with the models of the creation described in Christian legend. Although it professes to be agnostic, not bound to any particular religion, ID's strongest backers suspiciously seem to default to the Christian notion of God as the intelligence behind design.
More cynically, I suspect that this has more to do with an increasing "dumbing down" of public education systems in the United States (and indirectly, Canada). Public policy in the United States (and emulated badly in Alberta) has had the effect of increasing the gap between wealth and poverty. What does the "ruling class" gain from this? A minimally literate underclass who is limited by education, just educated enough to be "good little worker drones", reserving advancement to those who can afford an education in the "privately funded" realm.
4 comments:
ID: Should that not be "Inferior Design"?
Considering my own aches and pains, is the human body a result of design defects, manufacturing defects or planned obsolescence?
-The Bungle Lord
ID'ers often point to the complexity of biology, and assert that the complex, yet elegant (in their opinion) results imply some kind of prime mover.
They further claim that if things were as random as evolution suggests we'd all be a collection of Rube Goldberg machines.
I tend to favour the latter analysis - we are Rube Goldberg machines.
Intelligent Design may be true.
But there is nothing said about the competency of the designer.
-The Bungle Lord
Intelligent Design explained:
1) I have a thermos. It keeps hot things hot or cold things cold.
2) I don't understand how it works.
3) It must be a god.
Quixote
http://www.livejournal.com/users/quixote317/
Post a Comment