Specious Proofs
The New York Times continues to fan the flames of the "Evolution vs. Intelligent Design" [so-called] debate in what it thinks is an objective, balanced way.*
My favorite bit of reporting was this:
Stephen C. Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, compares the design approach to the work of archaeologists investigating an ancient civilization.
"Imagine you're an archaeologist and you're looking at an inscription, and you say, 'Well, sorry, that looks like it's intelligent but we can't invoke an intelligent cause because, as a matter of method, we have to limit ourselves to materialistic processes,' " Dr. Meyer said. "That would be nuts."
He added, "Call it miracle, call it some other pejorative term, but the fact remains that the materialistic view is a truncated view of reality."
My reaction is: say it fast enough and it's almost as believable an argument as the proof that 1 = 2, and equally useful. What's next: an "Intelligent Design" infomercial?
———-
*Kenneth Chang, "In Explaining Life's Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash", New York Times, 22 August 2005.
One Response
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 at 01.07
Permalink
Meyer artlessly muddles form and content. You don't have to be an archaeologist to figure out it's the person who created the inscription who was (more or less) intelligent, regardless of what the inscription looks like or means.
I can't imagine where he gets this limit to materialistic processes nonsense. If that's allusion to rejecting faith-based exlanations in the teaching of science, he's also ignorant about what science is: a discipline.
One can be disciplined in his or her faith, meaning adherence. But teamed with "science," the term is a noun denoting an approach to learning and doing things. It's not just materialistic processes, but it obviously requires more than beliefs that such and such is or should be so.
Good grief! How many angels can dance on the head of a pin before one falls down and gets the point — and a pain in the butt?