I've been following with some bewilderment the story of how proponents of ID and those of evolution are slugging it out in the West. For those out of the loop, ID = the theory of intelligent design. In a nutshell, it claims that life (I think human life in particular) is too complex to have evolved on its own; in fact, it is so complex that it needs an "intelligent designer" - an entity with the knowledge and resources to create life on this planet. Apparently, to disassociate itself from "religion", ID does not make any claims about the designer other than it's existence.
One example (which I probably read on slashdot, again) is about finding a fine Swiss watch on the street somewhere. It is so complex and so beautiful that one presumes that it has been designed and created by someone and that it didn't suddenly appear in the street by itself. The existence of that watch is itself a sign of the existence of the creator of that watch.
This theory goes head to head with that of evolution; that life follows a pattern of natural selection and there is no need for a creator, except perhaps to start off the universe.
The recent hoo-ha was about teaching of ID as an alternative to evolution in schools. Opponents of teaching ID claim it's just a back door to get a particular religion into the syllabus, while proponents say that every valid scientific theory should be taught in schools.
Sigh. As if life wasn't bad enough already. What do I think about all this? Follow this link:
FSM, and the truth will set you free (just kidding). I think, if I really found an exquisite and beautiful Swiss watch and it was the most interesting thing on the planet, I wouldn't be content to just accept a random creator somewhere. Wouldn't it be fun to find out who the creator is, does he care about what happens to the watch, how did he make the watch, can he make more, and can he teach me to make them?
No comments:
Post a Comment