This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Intelligent design should not excluded from the study of origins (sic)

Dark Matter's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by Dark Matter

I have already commented on this article in one of the other threads but I'll reproduce what I said there:


I think that this comment from Steve60 hits the nail on the head:


"This is a worrying article. A teacher should not have this attitude. Apart from being out-of-date regarding his knowledge of abiogenesis and the generation of information in the genome, Noble has serious misunderstandings about science and how it should be taught.

Firstly, it is unacceptable to teach students that it is hard to know how we will ever understand about something. Students don't need to know about Noble's personal opinion about how hard something is. Science isn't about subjective opinions.

Secondly, why should the views of the majority of the public matter in any way? This is science teaching, not lessons on public opinion. We would not teach the public opinion on quantum mechanics, or chemistry, so why in biology?

Noble reveals his ignoble agenda with this statement:

"If you insist that intelligent causation is to be excluded in the study of origins then you are teaching materialist philosophy, not science."

Intelligent causation is not excluded in the study of origins because of a certain materialist philosophy. It is excluded because intelligent causation is a conclusion, not an hypothesis. But what anyway is "non-materialist intelligent causation"? It can only mean one thing - "God did it".

Noble wants religion taught in science classes. No thanks."


I have always wondered how those who dismiss materialism can claim to have any acquaintance, understanding or knowledge of the so-called "non-material" to be even able to make statements of "objective" fact about the material in the way that Alistair Noble does in a deeply muddled article.

I have lost count of the amount of times I have heard our opponents argue that "we believe in Blind chance" or that "our outlook merely makes life random and meaningless" without really understanding why this is, in itself, supposed to be a "bad" thing.

If there is something called "meaning" then it is surely one of the human races most noble achievements in allowing us to cope with and catagorise our sensory data.

And at the level of the sub atomic, the basic building blocks of matter, blind chance entirely rules and can only be properly understood in terms of probabilities or probability functions.

Again, why is knowledge of this so utterly terrifying to those who must see purpose in absolutely everything?

Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:10:00 UTC | #418973