Science vs. Intelligent Design (Proof vs. Truth)
Pre-Preface: This is my first “real” post, and I’m already annoyed I couldn’t think of a better title. I’m also annoyed that I was itching to write it 9 hours ago, and now I’m sleepy and won’t do that itch justice. BUT! I won’t ever use this thing unless I get used to it, so no more putting it off.
Preface: Most of this entry (and chances are, most entries to come) are very much based on the fuzzy picture and loose, sometimes second-hand, facts I’ve picked up here and there. If I make a huge error or misrepresentation, by all means, let me know.
Okay, so my friend Whitney asked me to come over to her place and help her write a paper. Every day I get asked out for coffee, a movie, or some other “fun” thing, and my reaction, at least these days, has been “I guess if I HAVE to”, and yet, as soon as she asked me, I said yes and was actually excited to help out. I think I need to get back into classes. I digress. So the assignment, simply put, was to choose a social problem and to weigh its pros and cons (from research, not opinion) and then give a personal opinion using a logical argument. She chose the problem of intelligent design taught in schools.
I thought I had a basic grasp of intelligent design. I understood it as: nature, science, and evolution have a harmony that suggest–imply, even, that there must have been an intelligent being which designed it. With this as my definition, my counterpoint has been that things work in harmony with each other in any system, or the system would cease to exist. Everything must overcome, adapt, or cease existence. If I roll over in my sleep and knock over my lamp, the lamp will fall over. It has no control over this, and since I was asleep, neither did I. There was not an intelligent force involved, [Read more →]
