Some Thoughts on Intelligent Design
. . . by Bruce Alderman
Mark Olson responded to my post Why the Creation-Evolution Controvery is Important with a post of his own, Barbarians at the Gate. It appears that was his gentle way of telling me that I’m a bit over the top, at least about my comment on the assault on the integrity of science. Kudos to Mark…
You can find his further thoughts again at Reclaiming the Mind. If you read the first one, you should read this one as well.
The entire text is available on Levellers, and it’s a good one. Head over there and read it. I have the same reservations that Michael Westmoreland-White indicates, but that doesn’t detract from the quality of the speech.
I may be hopelessly naive in the matter of probability, though it is the one area of math that I have actually studied, but I am simply not terribly impressed with probability arguments. That’s probably (!) a major reason why I’m not impressed with intelligent design (ID). I’m particularly not impressed with probabilities calculated for…
This time it’s from my former community, the Seventh-day Adventist Church, though from the Spectrum Magazine blog, which doesn’t follow the church HQ drummer. It’s The Manhattan Declaration: Approach with Caution, and it’s worth a read.
Recently, I’ve written a bit about the difference between science and theology. One of the key differences is that science expects to change, whereas if theology is not assuming it is founded on bedrock, it is usually looking for some bedrock. Religious people often criticize science on the basis that it changes too often. Its…