I was picking about in the internet, checking out some of the places I don’t usually go. One of those is the “Discovery Institute”:http://www.discovery.org, the leading institution pushing the philosophy of “intelligent design”. Intelligent design has so far only been an attempt to veil creationism as pseudoscience, claiming that the theory of evolution is less valid than a theory that proclaims there must be an intelligence that explains how nature developed.
I saw that they have listed a debate on PAX television tomorrow night (10 p.m., April 9, 2005), which is “described on a separate website”:http://www.faithunderfire.com/indexFlash.html. The text of the description is as follows:
A POTPOURRI OF FAITH
Show No. 120 (April 9, 2005)
Faith plays itself out in places of worship…and in our daily lives. In this week’s Faith Under Fire, we look at issues surrounding faith in the classroom, in the workplace, and in the life of the daughter of America’s most famous evangelist:
– Teaching Evolution
– Billy Graham’s Other Woman
– Faith at Work
Teaching Evolution
For generations of students, evolution has been taught as scientific fact. Yet there are scientists who doubt Darwin’s theory and believe that intelligent design better explains the origins of life. How can this be? And should intelligent design be taught in the same science courses as evolution? Dr. John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and associate director of their Center for Science and Culture, squares off with Rev. Barry Lynn, practicing attorney, ordained minister, and Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
I would encourage you to check this program out. I am interested in seeing how the religious side presents this debate. Scientists, when asked about the “controversy” over evolution are confused, because the premise of the question suggests they doubt its validity. This understanding of the universe is based on rigorous investigation of the natural world.
The religious side seems to firmly believe that evolution is questionable, and I guess that’s what I want to see on this program. I’ve never seen this side of the debate, so it shall be interesting. However, as scientist who has seen our universe as it existed only a fleeting moment after its creation, I have to stick to my own observation: this universe is rationally intelligible, but since we are creatures of this universe we needn’t make the untestable assumption that this is the case. That’s philosophy, anyway, and not science. Let’s keep philosophy in its place, and science in the science class.
