Intelligent Design

David

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6187534.stm>; _"There's a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case "_ No, but advocating Creationism might give the game away.

Pete

I just can't understand how dressing up a 13th century philosophical arguement (which was shaky, at best) constitutes science.

"The packs were sent out to 5,000 secondary schools by a group of academics and clerics known as Truth in Science."

Or Bullshit in Action.

Gosh, i do find it deppressing then this sort of nonsense goes on, its like invading someone else clubhouse.

David

Considering science is based on methodical tests and evidence, trying to push intelligent design into that sphere is bizarre. It's faith, and that has its own section in education called, erm, religion.

andy

Evolution is quite simple. Natural selection is really very elegant in the way it allows for complex and emergent life forms and the anthropic principle answers most of the statistical issues.

I don't see the problem.

If their critique of evolution is that parts of it are too complex, I can't see how adding a layer of complexity (that there is a more complex, omniscient creature creating all the other ones) simplifies it for them.

It's junk theology masquerading as junk science.

Liz

Nutcases. Honestly, I despair sometimes. Don't these people have anything better to do? And have they never heard of [Occam's Razor][mf]? [mf]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor