Sunday, February 08, 2004

Bronson's ID: Intellectually Deficient

I swear I am not the one bringing up the issue of Evolution this often, so I hope no one blames me for being obsessive. Bronson might deserve a bit of flack for pushing this issue a bit too much. I really don't grasp the meaning of Peter's column. Is he trying to promote ID (Intelligent Design) as a biological concept? He has supported that kind of thing in the past, and his ignornce on Evolution speaks for itself.

Let us recap the spin of Peter today. He claims this
Roadruck collects examples of "evidence" of evolution. Many have been exposed as frauds - but they are still in textbooks, which evolve slower than flatworms.
OK Peter, show me some of the frauds of evolution. You claim to know of them, where are they?

More from Roadruck:
He argues that DNA and the incredible complexity of life - especially humans - contradict Darwin. "They're teaching evolution as truth - microbes to man. But this is not true. If they were stockbrokers, they'd be in jail" for fraud, he said.
OK Peter, I am sure this guy said this, but it misstates what evolution is. There is the process of evolution, which is fact. No scientist worth anything disagrees with that concept. The other element of evolutions involves the origin of species and then the origin of organic life. Those types are not "fact," or rather are no more "fact" then the concept of gravity.

Bronson's worst in the column is his spew that ID is science. ID is a philosophical argument. ID is one of classic arguments for the existence of a "God." There is no science to back this up, other than playing with mathematical probabilities.

This section I found laughable void of support, just conjecture:
"If you support this, you are labeled a Pat Robertson, fundamentalist wacko,'' said Owens-Fink, who has taught scientific research methods at University of Akron. "What's so bizarre is that they never attack the science part, they just attack the people.''
Ok, first off, where is the "science" that no one will attack? The only theories are to say that evolution is wrong and ID must be true because of the "complexity" of everything. So, they can't support their theory, they can only try and negative other concepts.

Second: Well, look who is supporting your movement and then try and guess why you might be considered a "Pat Robertson, fundamentalist wacko." Religion is at the core of the argument. Specific religious sects fear a society where people don't submit to the will of their religion. They fear that individuality and freedom from Christian will cause chaos, or at least a decline in collection plate receipts. The Roman Catholic Church does not fear science, why do Evangelical/Fundamentalist churches fear it?

Roadruck gives away his motives with Bronson's final quotes,
Roadruck says evolution is the cornerstone of a worldview.

"We've been indoctrinated,'' Roadruck said. "If you teach a generation that we all evolved from pond scum, then everything is relative. There is no truth.''
The worldview they fear is secular humanism. One where religion is not law, but instead a personal choice. Roadruck is in my view the one who has been indoctrinated with religious dogma so much that he fears anything that contradicts it. He blames other for fearing contradiction, while not really saying what is wrong with Evolution. If he had more than a philosophical answer, then maybe it might be worthy of debate, but he has none. Roadruck's problem is that he thinks "truth" is divine. Truth is a philosophical concept, one filled with opinion and perception. Fact is what science deals in. It tries to stick to logic and reason, and leave hunches, emotional dogma, and most of all religion out of mix.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't be an idiot or your post will be deleted.