At Last! Common Sense Prevails
I don't normally comment on non-technical issues in this Blog, but this week I feel impelled to do so to mark the ruling against the forced teaching of “Intelligent Design“ to school children on the pretext that it is not a religious view, but has some actual scientific basis. Although I am not an especially religious person and follow no particular faith's teachings entirely, I have always respected (and to some degree, even envied) those who do have complete faith. I fully support their right to express that faith as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others whose views differ.
However, I have no time whatever for proponents of Intelligent Design (or any other pseudo-scientific nonsense) when they try to advance their faith-based notions as if they were something more than simply statements of that faith. I was, therefore, both relieved, and delighted, to see the report of the case of the Dover School Board in Pennsylvania where it was decided that:
Teaching "intelligent design" to high school biology students violates laws prohibiting the endorsement of religion in public schools, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. The ruling in Pennsylvania is a major defeat for proponents of the controversial alternative theory about the origins of life.
The argument that one hears most often from the supporters of “Intelligent Design” is that: "Darwin's Theory is ONLY a theory" implying that this means that it is somehow lacking. Sure enough, this argument was,. once more, trotted out in this particular case.
The following statement was advanced by the defenders of ID:
"Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations."
However, not only is the statement incorrect in its definition of a Theory, it also shows is that they do not even understand the rules of Science, which define the four distinct levels at which ideas exist as follows:
-
LAW: A proposition that explains and predicts behavior within defined limits under all known circumstances (e.g. First Law of Thermodynamics)
-
THEOREM: A proposition that is not self-evident but which can be proven by a chain of reasoning based on established facts or that can be demonstrated by observed phenomenon (e.g. Theory of General Relativity)
-
HYPOTHESIS: A proposition made as a basis for reasoning without necessarily being based on established facts (i.e. an assumption)
-
CONJECTURE: An opinion formed on the basis of incomplete information
The key differentiation here is the factual basis of the proposition and its applicability. Viewed in this light "Intelligent Design" falls, even with the most generous interpretation, into the last category! It is a Conjecture (or, in plainer terms, a guess!) and as such cannot possibly be afforded the same status as a Theory. Note that this has nothing whatever to do with the content or merits of "Intelligent Design" as a proposition, it merely reflects the basis on which the idea is advanced. Would the proponents of Intelligent Design demand that equal prominence be given to the proposition that:
We have no incontrovertible proof of the existence of a benign higher intelligence. If such an intelligence existed, and were benign then surely we would have such proof. The only reason for a higher intelligence to exist, but to conceal its presence from us, is that it is indifferent to us, if not actually hostile.
After all, this is just as valid a conjecture as that which underpins "Intelligent Design"...
Of course, I realize that this will not end the matter! The proponents of ID will go on trying to force their nonsense down the throats of children (and adults) and will continue to waste the time of Judges and our Courts trying to obtain legal sanction for views that have no merit or basis - other than faith.
How much have these people cost us taxpayers to date?
By AK: Added Later on 12/21:
Please do not use feedback on my Weblog to advance the cause of either Evolution, or Intelligent Design - I will delete all such atttempts to do so. I have already had to delete several responses to this article which are, in my opinion, totally inappropriate to this discussion.
As I stated above, this has NOTHING to do with the content, or relative merits of, either “Intelligent Design“, or “Evolution“. I am concerned only with the basis on which the propositions are founded. All I am saying here is that whether we like it or not, there is a difference, in scientific significance, between a THEORY (which has a basis in demonstrable fact) and a CONJECTURE (which doesn't).
I am applauding the defeat (so far) of the attempt to use the legal system to force acceptance that Intelligent Design is, in some way, comparable to Evolution despite the fact that it is Conjecture, while Evolution is unquestionably a Theorem.
I am perfectly happy to discuss the issues I have raised here, but NOT the merits (or otherwise) of either Evolution or Intelligent Design