Jonathan Wells is seriously one of the leading proponents of "intelligent design theory" (ID), which is just a fancy term for creationism. In other words, he's about as good as they've got (with all due respect to noted population geneticist Ann Coulter).Wells, who is a veritable fountain of disingenuous inanity and nonsense, wrote something especially ridiculous about his great Moonie bugaboo, evolution, the other day. And Larry Moran, a professor at the University of Toronto, has all the details, complete with all the relevant links, right here.
I'm not particularly fond of the epithet "IDiots," but if there was ever an instance that truly merited its justified and suitable application, this is unquestionably that instance.
While the ID lexicon contains a number of other fancy-sounding expressions such as "specified complexity," "explanatory filter," and so forth, evidently it doesn't allow for "irreducible embarrassment."
2 comments:
I find it very sad that people would judge new theories based on pre-conceived ideas or on opinions on people's behaviour espousing them.
I don't know Mr. Wells personally or what he's been writing or advocating concerning the ID theory. However, I do know that this would be part of a much bigger issue that touches on aspects such as ICS (irreducible complex systems) and how to better explain the origin of this universe and the environment surrounding us.
One thing is for certain whatever someone's stripes one should *always* be guided by the SEARCH FOR TRUTH!
It definitely does not help the debate calling individuals of "the other camp" names (IDiots and the likes). This only shows profound lack of respect towards others!
Now, if one abandons one's pre-conceived ideas and spend the necessary time to evaluate these theories one should at least appreciate the possible validity of such proposals. I, for one, find it extremely plausible and reasonable what ID & ICS, for instance, propose. As a matter of fact I personally believe that the weight of the evidence is significantly more in tune with such theories than what the TOE (theory of evolution) proponents would have us believe.
The problem though is that no one seems willing to acknowledge the obvious, or the only *certainty* involved in this debate: that it requires FAITH on BOTH sides to believe in the solutions proposed by either camp!
No matter how many scientific methodologies, tools, data collection, and what have you one puts into this equation it would be *IMPOSSIBLE* to prove which theory is right FROM A PURELY SCIENTIFIC POINT-OF-VIEW! Why? Because of the humongous level of complexity and number of years spanning across the board.
Anyway, this is just my 2-cents worth and humble opinion.
Thanks for listening.
Marcus
PhD*, MBA, P Eng, Comp Prog
new theories
ID is neither, and science doesn't require faith.
Post a Comment