Monday, October 16, 2006

Discussion Not Evolving   [Carol Iannone]

Ben Wattenberg's Think Tank had on Stephen Meyer from the Discovery Institute and Darwinian Michael Ruse from Florida State University to discuss Intelligent Design. Ruse kept denying that ID was science, calling it religion or philosophy instead. We are familiar with this refrain. But he offered no specifics. I hold no brief for ID, but why isn’t it scientific to say, as IDers do, that certain biological mechanisms are irreducibly complex (i.e., inexplicable by random mutation and natural selection)? Why aren't the probability models that show that the components of life would take a trillion times the age of the earth to evolve by chance, why aren't they science? Well, the discussion continues next week, so perhaps it will get more specific. But one important thing, Meyer said that IDers are not asking that ID be taught whole in science classes (that was an unfortunate, not to say disastrous, misstep on the part of the Dover, Pennsylvania school board). Meyer said the idea is that Darwin be taught along with the criticisms of Darwin. That sounds reasonable. What's wrong with that? For example, first tell students that Darwin hypothesized that it all comes from chance, and then give them some of the models showing the probability of certain life substances evolving by chance. (And then, for fun, tell them to read Ann Coulter's hilarious section on evolution in Godless.)

10/16 10:56 AMShare