Donald Sensing on evolution and Intelligent Design

Donald Sensing has a post covering evolution and intelligent design. I thought this section has the issue fairly well-phrased:

Rand Simberg has an excellent post [which I have yet to read] about this. However, Rand errs slightly when he says that ID may be taught in schools, but not in a science class. Evolution (and the debate always come down to evolution) is science only up to its own limiting point - which is when evolutionists claim randomness explains complexity and species generation. That is as much an ideological or philosophical claim as ID.

There cannot be a science of randomness, for science depends on repeatability. The conclusion that randomness explains the beginning and history of life is not really a scientific conclusion. It is one thing, and a properly scientific thing, to say that here are processes that seem to explain the evolution of species. But it is not science to say with finality that no intentionality was involved. The exclusion of intentionality is not a scientific conclusion, but an ideological one.

(spelling error corrected). I'd like to further go through some of the post, especially the section towards the end on science and falsifiability. He quotes David Mobley:

I'd like to know why Simberg and Lindgren think the theory of evolution itself is falsifiable, while intelligent design is not. ... Let's consider the idea that we've evolved over time as the result of gradual changes which can eventually take something like a fish to become something like a human. How is that falsifiable? Particularly, what experiment could one do that would indicate that this is NOT true? ...

When it comes to the idea that all the species we see around us evolved from something like a bacteria, or many of the species or genera we see around us were designed by an intelligent creator, the theory of evolution and Intelligent Design are at least equally unfalsifiable. Certainly, microevolution is much more falsifiable -- and has indeed been confirmed in some cases -- but that's not what Intelligent Design is dealing with.

Though, I think we'd all be better off if we'd all get our terms straight.

Permalink | 3 Comments | Tags: Religion, Science | id 6319

01:55 (utc-5)
edited: 02:09 (utc-5)

 

"Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition'"

Scotsman.com News - Latest News - Bush 'Undermining UN with Aid Coalition':

“Only really the UN can do that job,” [former International Development Secretary Clare Short] told BBC Radio Four’s PM programme.... “It is the only body that has the moral authority.

Argh! What has the UN ever done successfully? What makes the UN the only body with the "moral authority" to deliver aid to disaster victims? Of course, I deny that the UN has any moral authority whatsoever, but seriously, what crazy view of the world leads you to make a statement like that?

Update: Amy and Sean have comments. Also see Amy's post on US humanitarian aid.

Update: Professor Bainbridge has comments. He points out that the US is being criticized both for not doing enough and for doing too much at the same time.

And RedState.org says about Claire Short's comments:

She goes on to say, "Only really the UN can do that job. . . . It is the only body that has the moral authority. But it can only do it well if it is backed up by the authority of the great powers."... Shocking to no one is her opinion that the U.S. is "very bad at coordinating with anyone."... Just to speak truth to power, and to remind those who have possibly forgotten: didn't the U.N. "coordinate" the oil-for-food program? If I understand correctly, the U.N. allowed various trustees and overseers to "coordinate" away Iraqi assets. And the U.N. was backed by the "great powers" the whole time... So, maybe policy makers are justified in believing that the U.N. is not the best administrator of resources.

Update: The Diplomad has a news flash: Clare Short is an Idiot! (via LGF):

"Only really the UN can do the job?" We have US C-130s flying in and out of here dropping off heaps of supplies; US choppers arrive today; USAID is doing a knock-out job of marshalling and coordinating US and local resources to deliver real assistance to real people. The Aussies have planes and troops delivering stuff; even the Indians have goods on the way. The UN? Nowhere to be seen. OK, I'm not being fair. Last night they played host to a big "coordination" meeting of donors to announce that the UNDP has another large "assessment and coordination team" team arriving. Our USAID guys, who've been working 18-20 hrs/day, came back furious from this meeting saying everybody would be dead if the delivery of aid waited for the UN to set up shop and begin "coordinating." The UN types are upset with the US, Ms. Short, dear, not because we're undermining them but because we're showing them up as totally inept.

So much stupidity . . . . Ms. Short and her ilk would rather have people die than have the US go it "alone" with its partners.

That seems right.

Permalink | 2 Comments | Tags: Opinions/Politics | id 6316

01:13 (utc-5)
edited: 15:44 (utc-5)