Friday, November 25, 2005

i'm reading an article about college clubs about intelligent design. there's a quote from a student at Cornell who founded an intelligent design club, and it's enough to make my head spin:

"In my opinion, both intelligent design and Darwinian evolution are science. Both have philosophical implications."

so, if it has philosophical implications, then it's science? last time i checked, that was not the case. just about anything and everything can have philosophical implications, it's a question of how you frame it and what you see in it. this includes tangible things, scientific things, religious things, social ideas, and everything in between. evolution has philosophical implications. intelligent design has philosophical implications.

but, that does not mean that both are science, in the sense of a way to explain the natural world. according to merriam-webster's dictionary, science is defined as:

"knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method"

nowhere in that is science defined as "that which has philosophical implications." i'd go into a rant about how intelligent design is not science...but i think i went off on that enough yesterday.

No comments: