I’m a bit pressed for time today, so why not just have a look at this insightful op-ed by Jay Ingram in The Toronto Star. He begins:
Scientists are absolutely correct to argue that intelligent design — the claim that a designer, not evolution, created life on Earth — is not science and does not belong in science classrooms. But it might come as a surprise to many of them that simply saying so isn’t enough.
First, to understand why intelligent design isn’t science, you do have to know something about what science is.
Scientists constantly test their theories, trying to poke holes in them. They perform observations and/or experiments to do that. If their preconceptions are not supported by what they see, detect or calculate, they are discarded.
Well said. I also found this interesting
Scott Lilienfeld, a psychologist at Emory University in Atlanta, understands why. In an article in this month’s Skeptical Inquirer, Lilienfeld argues that the problem with scientists is that they expect the general public to be sensible about the whole issue and choose evolution.
But should they be? There is, of course, the issue of religion, as I just mentioned. But what about those who are on the fence, people who might be churchgoers but are not virulently anti-evolution? Is evolution the “common sense” explanation for the glorious diversity of life? No, it is not.
Evolution is hard to grasp. It only makes sense if you’re willing to give it millions of years, and if you can grasp the idea that the most infinitesimal changes in genes can, when captured by natural selection, actually create marvellous organs, like the eye, and marvellous species, from fruit flies to blue whales.
Personally, the idea that numerous small variations sifted by natural selection can lead to magnificent structures seems perfectly straightforward to me. It’s the idea of an omnipotent creator who can bring whole worlds into being with one waggle of his finger that I find hard to grasp.