Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Have any of you read the OpEd piece from the Christian Science
Monitor titled "What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its
critics"? It obviously gets a wide audience, but I think it is
quite off-track. I'd be interested in other opinions.
<http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1222/p09s02-coop.html>
The author starts out basically claiming that because science is
often mis-defined, we shouldn't bother trying to clearly determine
what is and isn't science. He gives several "straw man" definitions
of science and then knocks them down, claiming then that science is
basically undefinable.
Instead, he suggests that we "apply the label "science" to any
collection of assertions about the workings of the natural world.
Fine, intelligent design is a science then - as is astrology, as is
parapsychology. But what has a claim to being taught in the science
classroom isn't all science, but rather the best science..."
To me this is a dangerous erosion of what science is. The author
feels that the distiction between good and bad science is clearer
than the 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
say something to someone!!!