Saturday, March 04, 2006
Failed Fianchetto
It intrigues me that some proponents of evolution have been upset by what they perceive as injecting philosophy and theology into the science classroom, while they have appeared oblivious to the entwining of the philosophy of materialism with evolutionary theory for the past 150 years. ...
Opponents of Intelligent Design argue to keep all philosophical assumptions or theories out of science class discussions. I would support such an approach, if this meant that in science classes the limited areas, where there is hard scientific evidence for natural selection, would no longer be used as a springboard to teach the grand assumptions and theories of materialism.
Let the scientific facts speak for themselves with no philosophical explanations offered. However, if materialism is going to continue to be expounded in science classes, then why not allow a hearing of the competing theory of Intelligent Design?
In the place of natural selection for the answer to these bigger realities, the Intelligent Design theorists hold that the empirical data supports the principle of "irreducible complexity." The important consequence of this principle results in a conclusion that it is impossible to explain by chance the natural world with its amazing variety of life forms, the microscopic intricate mechanisms found in the ordinary cell, and the incredible volume of information encoded into a cell’s DNA directing its remarkably complex activity.
I would be comfortable if our public schools taught both the philosophical theories of materialism with its view of a world that evolved by chance and Intelligent Design with its vision of a world whose order and beauty reveal an intelligent architect.
As Yossarian would say: "Nice catch!"
__________
* In case anyone thinks I am being unfair to the Archbishop, see the previous article on the relationship between faith and reason that he refers to. There he says:
Once we remove God from our understanding of the cosmos, then human beings are quickly reduced to just another object of the material world that can be manipulated and used by the powerful.
Of course, one obvious objection is: whose God will we teach at public expense as an explanation of the universe? Perhaps the Archbishop should read up on who that God is according to the Intelligent Design advocates, such as William Dembski. Michael Behe is a rare and none-too-competent exception to the theological aims within the ID movement.
Does he really want to turn the souls of young Catholic children over to their likes?
