All Hail the Spaghetti Monster
Pharyngula points to a wonderful alternative to both evolution and intelligent design:
The problem with giving equal time in school to evolution and intelligent design is that, no matter how hard ID proponents argue, ID is not and never will be science.
When a scientist uncovers something he or she doesn't understand and for which an adequate explanation does not already exist, he or she thinks something like this:
"I don't understand this. Using my knowledge of existing natural laws and some intuition, I will try to deduce an explanation. I will then test this hypothesis. If it fails the test, I will reject it and attempt to find another explanation. If it passes the test, I will accept the hypothesis as the closest approximation to the truth that I have, until it is either disproven by later experiments or superceded by a better explanation."
When an ID person uncovers something he or she doesn't understand and for which an adequate explanation does not already exist, he or she thinks something like this:
"I do not understand this. As a result, this can not possibly be the result of existing natural laws. I will not seek other hypotheses - having rejected only one hypothesis, I will assume that there is one and only one alternative. Nor am I willing to accept that I simply don't know. Instead, I will assume the existence of a designer, one for whom no evidence exists, whose existence can never be tested, and who exists entirely outside known natural laws."
Get it? ID isn't science - it's the assumption that things that go unexplained must be the result of something which has not and cannot be observed. Furthermore, no experiment could ever be conducted to disprove its existence. Further, furthermore, this unobservable, untestable designer does not design through known natural laws - that would kind of defeat the purpose of a designer, if we could already figure out a mechanism for evolution - but exists beyond those natural laws: hence, supernatural.
Sorry folks. Science isn't in the business of the supernatural which is, by definition, beyond the scope of science. And in science class, we teach science.
And Spaghetti Monsterism. Same diff.
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.Perfect!
...I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
The problem with giving equal time in school to evolution and intelligent design is that, no matter how hard ID proponents argue, ID is not and never will be science.
When a scientist uncovers something he or she doesn't understand and for which an adequate explanation does not already exist, he or she thinks something like this:
"I don't understand this. Using my knowledge of existing natural laws and some intuition, I will try to deduce an explanation. I will then test this hypothesis. If it fails the test, I will reject it and attempt to find another explanation. If it passes the test, I will accept the hypothesis as the closest approximation to the truth that I have, until it is either disproven by later experiments or superceded by a better explanation."
When an ID person uncovers something he or she doesn't understand and for which an adequate explanation does not already exist, he or she thinks something like this:
"I do not understand this. As a result, this can not possibly be the result of existing natural laws. I will not seek other hypotheses - having rejected only one hypothesis, I will assume that there is one and only one alternative. Nor am I willing to accept that I simply don't know. Instead, I will assume the existence of a designer, one for whom no evidence exists, whose existence can never be tested, and who exists entirely outside known natural laws."
Get it? ID isn't science - it's the assumption that things that go unexplained must be the result of something which has not and cannot be observed. Furthermore, no experiment could ever be conducted to disprove its existence. Further, furthermore, this unobservable, untestable designer does not design through known natural laws - that would kind of defeat the purpose of a designer, if we could already figure out a mechanism for evolution - but exists beyond those natural laws: hence, supernatural.
Sorry folks. Science isn't in the business of the supernatural which is, by definition, beyond the scope of science. And in science class, we teach science.
And Spaghetti Monsterism. Same diff.
posted by The Commentariart at 8:22 PM
11 Comments:
Are you familiar with Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy? I'm reminded of the people who believe the universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure (sp?). They live in eternal fear of the day of the great white hankerchief.
All this would be so much more interesting if there was a point to your rant.
When you're bad, you suck.
Tatter, if you don't like what I write, you're welcome not to read it.
Commentariart,
If I don't read what you write, how will I know if I like it or not?
Tatter, if you don't like it, tell me why you didn't like it, instead of "you suck".
I don't think he followed the logic, TC. Mind you, my 11 year old understands the scientific process because she just learned it in grade six, and your post explains it quite well, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
The worst sin a blogger, or any writer for that matter, can commit is being BORING.
Capisc?
The worst sin a blogger, or any writer for that matter, can commit is being BORING.
Funny, I always thought is was being boorish and rude.
One problem I have with the post is C's supposing that he can accurately portray the position of his opponents (IDers). In my experience, most of the time trying to restate what an opponent is thinking, or trying to say, is a precursor to knocking down a strawman. It's very difficult to portray accurately a position one thinks is dumb/foolish/wrong. A few links to some articulate ID essays would have helped.
As the Bugs Bunny cartoon goes, "It's not that I don't trust ya...BUT!"
My biggest concern with teaching evolution isn't creationism vs. evolution per se, but that the considerable parts of evolution which are still theoretical are portrayed as such, rather than as proven fact. Much of it is still our "best guess" based on the limited evidence at hand, enough so that teaching that everything with regards to how man got to his present state has been definitively settled isn't accurate, either. As long as the scientific limits are recognized, and theories aren't taught as facts, no problem.
Tagryn,
The problem (which I think TC was trying to state) seems centered around the move to consider ID as an alternative scientific theory. ID cannot, in any way, be a scientific theory, since it cannot, in any way, be tested. ID, at best, may exist as a philosophical theory.
If IDers want ID in school, they need to look to philospohy classes or religion classes... not science classes.
Delightful blog. I devote my spare time just
looking for great blogs such as yours. I treasure this
site and will go back!
I was in love with your canada term life insurance quote blog site.
Post a Comment
<< Home