Have any of you read the OpEd piece from the Christian Science Monito=
r titled "What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics"=
? It obviously gets a wide audience, but I think it is quite off-tra=
ck. I'd be interested in other opinions.
The author starts out basically claiming that because science is ofte=
n mis-defined, we shouldn't bother trying to clearly determine what i=
s and isn't science. He gives several "straw man" definitions of sci=
ence and then knocks them down, claiming then that science is basical=
ly undefinable.
Instead, he suggests that we "apply the label "science" to any collec=
tion of assertions about the workings of the natural world. Fine, int=
elligent design is a science then - as is astrology, as is parapsycho=
logy. But what has a claim to being taught in the science classroom i=
sn't all science, but rather the best science..." =20
To me this is a dangerous erosion of what science is. The author fee=
ls that the distiction between good and bad science is clearer than t=
he distinction between science and non-science. I would much rather =
keep the lines drawn where they are.
Anyway, this has just been bothering me all afternoon and I had to sa=
y something to someone!!!