Comments on: All by Design http://www.notnews.org/policy/all-by-design.html Philosophy, public affairs and pop culture. Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:27:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Dave Thomer http://www.notnews.org/policy/all-by-design.html#comment-54 Dave Thomer Thu, 29 Dec 2005 02:47:34 +0000 http://www.notnews.org/policy/all-by-design.html#comment-54 Well, if the decision in the Dover case is any indication, the reason it's focusing on evolution is precisely because it <em>is</em> committed to the creation story in the Bible. (At least one of them, anyway.) Intelligent design, in this context, is meant as an end-run around the ban on creationism. That the Dover board was so duplicitous in its behavior really serves to highlight that. Asdoes the fact that the ID supporters are so determined to fight this out within science classes, as opposed to the context of a social studies or religion course. I wonder if Charles Peirce ever thought we'd still be fighting the authority-vs.-empiricism debate over a century later? And welcome to Not News! Well, if the decision in the Dover case is any indication, the reason it’s focusing on evolution is precisely because it is committed to the creation story in the Bible. (At least one of them, anyway.) Intelligent design, in this context, is meant as an end-run around the ban on creationism. That the Dover board was so duplicitous in its behavior really serves to highlight that. Asdoes the fact that the ID supporters are so determined to fight this out within science classes, as opposed to the context of a social studies or religion course.

I wonder if Charles Peirce ever thought we’d still be fighting the authority-vs.-empiricism debate over a century later?

And welcome to Not News!

]]> By: Kyle http://www.notnews.org/policy/all-by-design.html#comment-53 Kyle Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:28:40 +0000 http://www.notnews.org/policy/all-by-design.html#comment-53 I <a href="http://fluidimagination.com/blog/index.php/archives/kyle/a-thought-on-the-intelligent-designevolution-debate" rel="nofollow">wrote as much</a> a little while ago, saying that Intelligent Design should go back one frame in the movie of the universe if it hopes to have any relevance. A general theory of evoluition (which would explain not only humans, but any ordered system that finds its origins in chaos) depends upon the prior existence of matter and time, but it can do nothing (and is <em>meant</em> to do nothing) about explaining their existence. If Intelligent Design is not committed to the creation story in the Bible (or, as you said, any other form of religious scripture), it should let evolution be and position itself in relation to any theory that attemps to explain how the something came from the nothing. That's the field it wants to play in. I don't know why its focusing on evolution. I wrote as much a little while ago, saying that Intelligent Design should go back one frame in the movie of the universe if it hopes to have any relevance. A general theory of evoluition (which would explain not only humans, but any ordered system that finds its origins in chaos) depends upon the prior existence of matter and time, but it can do nothing (and is meant to do nothing) about explaining their existence. If Intelligent Design is not committed to the creation story in the Bible (or, as you said, any other form of religious scripture), it should let evolution be and position itself in relation to any theory that attemps to explain how the something came from the nothing. That’s the field it wants to play in. I don’t know why its focusing on evolution.

]]>