Thursday, September 29, 2005

Lithwick on ID

Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick offers these worthy sentiments:


My modest proposal would be that, instead of using intelligent design merely to fill in the gaps and inconsistencies of our most intractable scientific puzzles, we roll back what we've already learned about science and plug God into the equation at the outset. Kind of cut out those annoying scientific middlemen. That apple didn't fall onto Sir Isaac Newton's head because of gravity. It was God. God didn't want Newton to study science, and he doesn't want us to, either. And I, for one, am relieved. As Galileo famously said, and Teen Talk Barbie famously paraphrased: “Science is hard.”


Not the most original sentiments, but entirely correct. To practicing scientists it is obvious that there is no practical difference between saying, “A designer with unfathomable power did this,” and “We have no idea how this was done.” ID contributes nothing to science.

1 Comments:

At 8:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not the most original sentiments, but entirely correct. To practicing scientists it is obvious that there is no practical difference between saying, “A designer with unfathomable power did this,” and “We have no idea how this was done.” ID contributes nothing to science.

Indeed ID contributes nothing to science, but I disagree that those two statements have no practical difference. In practice, the second one is merely telling us we have work to do; but the first is telling us to forget it, no matter what we do we can't advance our knowledge.

'We don't know' is vastly superior to 'Some designer of unstated and unknowable means and motives did it.'

Dave S.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home